^i^^ 


'in  t  MH  AND  SUOSIFfi'S 

^I^H  LIBRAI^y, 

South  St.  Louis.  Mo. 

^     jf6^ 

is    book    may   be    retained    for 
elc.s. 

.ve  cents   tine  per  wef-k  beyond 
t,ime. 
>.    Anyone    who   writes  in.  tears  or 
nerwise  injures  books,  will  be  obliged 
pay  according  to  their  value. 

TERAfS  OF  MEMBERSHtP. 

For  Sodallsts.  -  $1  00  per  year. 

I  Those  not  in  Sodality,         1  50  per  year. 

i  Lending  books,         10  cents,  two  week.*. 

\ 

-•llll*l«IWfltlWIWII*lltll«IWIWMII«l«ll*ll*ll«IMI«lt«ll«l«l«iai.. 


«« 


c  r  eft 


%^ 

^ 

!*•< 

^.r 

o  CD 

a 

3* 

E.  r 

'  cr 

o 

22 
9? 

3 

a. 

t^ 

'.         A.. 


COMMENTARY 


^ISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS, 


DESIGNED  FOR 


STUDENTS    OF    THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE. 


BY 


CHARLES   HODGE. 


PnOFESSOll    OF    BIBLICAL    LITEIIATUHE    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINABlf 
AT    rillNCETON. 


Philadelphia: 


PUBLISHED    BY    GRIGG   &   ELLIOT, 

NO.  9  NORTH  FOURTH  STREET. 

1835. 


Entered,  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835,  by  Charles  Hobge, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of  New  Jersey.         * . 


\ 


rniNCETON ;  tuinted  uir  joiin  iiogaut. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Paul. 

When  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  were  called  to  enter  upon 
their  important  duties,  the  world  was  in  a  deplorable  and  yet 
most  interesting  state.  Both  Heathenism  and  Judaism  were  in 
the  last  stages  of  decay.  The  polytheism  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  had  been  carried  to  such  an  extent  as  to  shock  the 
common  sense  of  mankind,  and  to  lead  the  more  intelligent 
among  them  openly  to  reject  and  ridicule  it.  This  scepticism 
had  already  extended  itself  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  be- 
come almost  universal.  As  the  transition  from  infidelity  to 
superstition  is  certain,  and  generally  immediate,  all  classes  of 
the  people  were  disposed  to  confide  in  dreams,  enchantments, 
and  other  miserable  substitutes  for  religion.  The  two  reisnina: 
systems  of  philosophy,  the  Stoic  and  Platonic,  were  alike  in- 
sufficient to  satisfy  the  agitated  minds  of  men.  The  former 
sternly  repressed  the  best  natural  feelings  of  the  soul,  incul- 
cating nothing  but  a  blind  resignation  to  the  unalterable  course 
of  things,  and  promising  nothing  beyond  an  unconscious  exist- 
ence hereafter.  The  latter  regarded  all  religions  as  but  different 
forms  of  expressing  the  same  general  truths,  and  represented 
the  whole  mythological  system  as  an  allegory,  as  incomprehen- 
sible to  the  common  people  as  the  pages  of  a  book  to  those  who 
cannot  read.  This  system  promised  more  than  it  could  accom- 
plish. It  excited  feelings  which  it  could  not  satisfy,  and  thus 
contributed  to  produce  that  general  ferment  which  existed  at 
this  period.  Among  the  Jews,  generally,  the  state  of  things 
was  hardly  much  better.  They  had,  indeed,  the  form  of  true 
religion,  but  were,  in  a  gi'cat  measure  destitute  of  its  spirit. 
The  Pharisees  were  contented  with  the  form;  the  Sadducees 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

were  sceptics;  the  Essenes  were  enthusiasts  and  mystics.  Such 
beins:  the  state  of  the  world,  men  were  led  to  feel  the  need  of 
some  surer  guide  than  either  reason  or  tradition,  and  some  bet- 
ter foundation  of  confidence  than  either  heathen  philosophers 
or  Jewish  sects  could  afford.  Hence,  when  the  glorious  gospel 
was  revealed,  thousands  of  hearts,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
were  prepared  by  the  grace  of  God  to  exclaim,  This  is  all  our 
desire  and  all  our  salvation. 

The  history  of  the  apostle  Paul  shows  that  he  was  prepared 
to  act  in  such  a  state  of  society.     In  the  first  place,  he  was  born 
and  probably  educated  in  part  at  Tarsus,  the  capital  of  Cilicia; 
a  city  almost  on  a  level  with  Athens  and  Alexandria  for  its 
literary  zeal  and  advantages.     In  one  respect,  it  is  said  by  an- 
cient writers  to  have  been  superior  to  either  of  them.     In  the 
other  cities  mentioned,  the  majority  of  students  were  strangers, 
but  in  Tarsus  they  were  the  inhabitants  themselves.*     That 
Paul  passed  the  early  part  of  his  life  here  is  probable,  because  the 
trade  which  he  was  taught,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of 
the  Jews,  was  one  peculiarly  common  in  Cilicia.     From  the 
hair  of  the  goats,  with  which  that  province  abounded,  a  rough 
cloth  was  made,  which  was  much  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
tents.      The  knowledge  which  the  apostle  manifests  of  the 
Greek  authors,  1  Cor.  15:  33.  Tit.  1:  12,  would  also  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  had  received  at  least  part  of  his  education  in  a 
Grecian  city.     Many  of  his  characteristics,  as  a  writer,  lead  to 
the  same  conclusion.     He  pursues  far  more  than  any  other  of 
the  sacred    writers  of   purely  Jewish    education,  the   logical 
method  in  presenting  truth.      There  is  alinost  always  a   re- 
gular  concatenation   in   his  discourses,    evincing    the    sponta- 
neous exercise  of  a  disciplined  mind,  even  when  not  carrying 
out  a   ])rcvious    plan.      His  epistles,  therefore,  ai-e    far  more 
logical  than   ordinary  letters,  without  the  formality  of  regular 
dissertations.     Another  characteristic  of  his  manner  is,  that  in 
discussing  any  question,  he  always  presents  the  ultimate  princi- 
ple on  which  the  decision  de])cnds.     These  and  similar  charac- 
teristics of  this  aj)ostle  are  commonly,  and  probaljly  with  justice, 
ascribed  partly  to  his  turn  of  mind  and  partly  to  his  early  edu- 
cation.    We   learn   from   the  scrii)tures  themselves,   that  the 

*  Stral;c),  Lil).  14,  cli.  fj. 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

Holy  Sjjirit,  in  employing  men  as  his  instruments  in  conveying 
truth,  did  not  change  their  mental  habits;  he  did  not  make  Jews 
write  like  Greeks,  or  force  all  into  the  same  mould.  Each 
retained  his  own  peculiarities  of  style  and  manner,  and,  there- 
fore, whatever  is  peculiar  in  each,  is  to  be  referred,  not  to  his 
inspiration,  but  to  his  original  character  and  culture.  While 
the  circumstances  just  referred  to,  render  it  probable  that  the 
apostle's  habits  of  mind  were  in  some  measure  influenced  by 
his  birth  and  early  education  in  Tarsus,  there  are  others  (such 
as  the  general  character  of  his  style)  which  show  that  his  resi- 
dence there  could  not  have  been  long,  and  that  his  education 
was  not  thoroughly  Grecian.  We  learn  from  himself  that  he 
was  principally  educated  at  Jerusalem,  being  brought  up,  as  he 
says,  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  (Acts  22:  3).  This  is  the  second 
circumstance  in  the  providential  preparation  of  the  apostle  for 
his  work,  which  is  worthy  of  notice.  As  Luther  was  educated 
in  a  Catholic  seminary,  and  thoroughly  instructed  in  the  scho- 
lastic theology  of  which  he  was  to  be  the  great  opposer,  so  the 
apostle  Paul  was  initiated  into  all  the  doctrines  and  modes  of 
reasoning  of  the  Jews,  with  whom  his  principal  controversy 
was  to  be  carried  on.  The  early  adversaries  of  the  gospel  were 
all  Jews.  Even  in  the  heathen  cities  they  were  so  numerous, 
that  it  was  through  them  and  their  proselytes  that  the  church  in 
such  places  was  founded.  Wc  find,  therefore,  that  in  almost  all 
his  epistles,  the  apostle  contends  with  Jewish  errorists,  the  cor- 
rupters of  the  gospel  by  means  of  Jewish  doctrines.  Paul,  the 
most  extensively  useful  of  all  the  apostles,  was  thus  a  thoroughly 
educated  man;  a  man  educated  with  a  special  view  to  the  work 
which  he  was  called  to  perform.  We  find,  therefore,  in  this,  as 
in  most  similar  cases,  that  God  effects  his  purposes  by  those  in- 
struments which  he  has,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  providence, 
specially  fitted  for  their  accomplishment.  In  the  third  place,  Paul 
was  converted  without  the  intervention  of  human  instrumen- 
tality, and  was  taught  the  gospel  by  immediate  revelation.  "  I 
certify  you,  brethren,"  he  says  to  the  Galatians,  "  that  the  gospel 
which  was  preached  of  me,  was  not  after  man.  For  I  neither 
received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ."  These  circumstances  are  important,  as  he 
was  thus  placed  completely  on  a  level  with  the  other  apostles. 
He  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  could,  therefore,  be  one  of 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

the  witnesses  of  his  resurrection;  he  was  able  to  claim  the  au- 
thority of  an  original  inspired  teacher  and  messenger  of  God. 
It  is  obvious  that  he  laid  great  stress  upon  this  point,  from  the 
frequency  with  which  he  refers  to  it.  He  was  thus  furnished 
not  only  with  the  advantages  of  his  early  education,  but  with 
the  authority  and  power  of  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ. 

His  natural  character  was  ardent,  energetic,  uncompromising 
and  severe.     How  his  extravagance  and  violence  were  subdued 
by  the  grace  of  God  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  moderation, 
mildness,  tenderness  and  conciliation  manifested  in  all  his  epis- 
tles.    Absorbed  in  the  one  object  of  glorifying  Christ,  he  was 
ready  to  submit  to  any  thing,  and  to  yield  any  thing  necessary 
for  this  purpose.     He  no  longer  insisted  that  others  should 
think  and  act  just  as  he  did;  so  that  they  obeyed  Christ,  he  was 
satisfied,  and  he  willingly  conformed   to  their  prejudices  and 
tolerated  their  errors,  so  far  as  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness allowed.     By  his  early  education,  by  his  miraculous  con- 
version and  inspiration,  by  his  natural  disposition,  and  by  the 
abundant  grace  of  God  was  tliis  apostle  fitted  for  his  work,  and 
sustained  under  his  multiplied  and  arduous  labours. 

On'ffin  and  Cnndilton  of  the  Church  at  Borne. 
One  of  the  providential  circumstances  which  most  effectually 
contributed  to  the  early  propagation  of  Christianity,  was  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  among  surrounding  nations.     Thej^  were 
widely  scattered  througli  the  East,  Egypt,  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 
Greece  and  Italy,  especially  at  Rome.      As  they  were  per- 
mitted, throughout  the  wide  extent  of  the  Roman  Empire,  to 
worship  God  according  to  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  syna- 
gogues were  every  where  established  in  the  midst  of  the  hea- 
then.    The  apostles,  being  Jews,  had  thus  every  where  a  ready 
access  to  the  people.     The  synagogues  furnished  a  convenient 
place  for  regular    assemblies,  without  attracting  the  attention 
or  exciting  the  suspicion    of  tlie   civil   authorities.     In  these 
assemblies  they  were  sure  of  meeting  not  only  Jews,  but  the 
heathen  also,  and  precisely  the  class  of  heathen  best  prepared 
for  the  reception  of  the  gospel.     The  infinite  superiority  of  the 
pure  theism  of  the  Old  Testament  scriptures  to  any  form  of  re- 
ligion known  to  the  ancients,  could  not  fail  to  attract  and  con- 
vince multftudes  among  the  pagans,  wherever  the  Jewish  worship 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

was  established.  J>uch  persons  became  either  proselytes  or  "  de- 
vout," that  is,  worshippers  of  the  true  God.  Being  free  from 
the  inveterate  national  and  religious  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  and 
at  the  same  time  convinced  of  the  falsehood  of  polytheism,  they 
were  the  most  susceptible  of  all  the  early  hearers  of  the  gospel. 
It  was  by  converts  from  among  this  class  of  persons,  that  the 
churches  in  all  the  heathen  cities  were  in  a  great  measure 
founded.  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  Jews  were  very 
numerous  at  Rome,  and  that  the  class  of  proselytes  or  devout 
persons  among  the  Romans  was  also  very  large.  Philo  says 
(Legatio  in  Caium,  p.  1041,  ed.  Frankf.)  that  Augustus  had 
assigned  the  Jews  a  large  district  beyond  the  Tiber  for  their 
residence.  He  accounts  for  their  being  so  numerous  from  the 
fact  that  the  captives  carried  thither  by  Pompey  were  liberated 
by  their  masters,  who  found  it  inconvenient  to  have  servants 
who  adhered  so  strictly  to  a  religion  which  forbade  constant 
and  familiar  intercourse  with  the  heathen.  Dion  Cassius  (Lib. 
60,  c.  6)  mentions  that  the  Jews  were  so  numerous  at  Rome 
that  Claudius  was  at  first  afraid  to  banish  them,  but  contented 
himself  with  forbidding  their  assembling  together.  That  he 
afterwards,  on  account  of  the  tumults  which  they  occasioned, 
did  banish  them  from  the  city,  is  mentioned  by  Suetonius 
(Vita  Claudii,  c.  25),  and  by  Luke,  Acts  18:2.  That  the  Jews 
on  the  death  of  Claudius  returned  to  Rome,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  Suetonius  and  Dion  Cassius  speak  of  their  being  very 
numerous  under  the  following  reigns;  and  also  from  the  con- 
tents of  this  epistle,  especially  the  salutations  in  ch.  16,  ad- 
dressed to  Jewish  Christians. 

That  the  establishment  of  the  Jewish  worship  at  Rome  had 
produced  considerable  effect  on  the  Romans,  is  clear  from  the 
statements  of  the  heathen  writers  themselves.  Ovid  speaks  of 
the  synagogues  as  places  of  fashionable  resort;  Juvenal  (Satire 
14),  ridicules  his  countrymen  for  becoming  Jews;*  and  Tacitus' 

*   Quidam  sortiti  metuentem  sabbata  patrem, 
Nil  praeter  nubes,  coeli  numen  adorant: 
Nee  distare  putant  humana  carne  suillam, 
Qua  pater  abstinuit,  mox  et  praeputia  ponunt. 
Romanas  autem  soliti  contemners  leges, 
Judaicum  ediscunt,  et  servant,  ac  metuunt  jus, 
Tradidit  arcano  quodcunque  volumine  Moses,  &c. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

(Hist.  Lib.  5,  ch.  5*)  refers  to  the  presents  sent  by  Roman 
proselytes  to  Jerusalem.  The  way  was  thus  prepared  for  the 
early  reception  and  rapid  extension  of  Christianity  in  the  im- 
perial city.  When  the  gospel  was  first  introduced  there,  or  by 
whom  the  introduction  was  effected,  is  unknown.  Such  was 
the  constant  intercourse  between  Rome  and  the  provinces,  that 
it  is  not  surprising  that  some  of  the  numerous  converts  to 
Christianity  made  in  Judea,  Asia  Minor  and  Greece,  should  at 
an  early  period  find  their  way  to  the  capital.  It  is  not  impossi- 
ble that  many,  who  had  enjoyed  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ, 
and  believed  in  his  doctrines,  miglit  have  removed  or  returned 
to  Rome,  and  lieen  the  first  to  teach  the  gospel  in  that  city. 
Still  less  improbable  is  it,  that  among  the  multitudes  present  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  among  whom  were  "  stran- 
gers of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,"  there  were  some  who 
carried  back  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel.  That  the  introduc- 
tion of  Christianity  occurred  at  an  early  period  may  be  inferred 
not  only  from  the  probabilities  just  referred  to,  but  from  other 
circumstances.  When  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  the  faith  of  the 
Romans  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  world,  which  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  church  had  already  been  long  established. 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  left  Rome  on  account  of  the  decree  of 
Claudius  banishing  the  Jews,  were  probably  Christians  before 
their  departure;  nothing  at  least  is  said  of  their  having  been 
converted  by  the  apostle.  He  found  them  at  Corinth,  and  being 
of  the  same  trade,  he  abode  with  them,  and  on  his  departure 
took  them  with  him  into  Syria. 

The  tradition  of  some  of  the  ancient  fathers  that  Peter  was 
the  founder  of  the  church  at^  Rome  is  inconsistent  with  the 
statements  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles.  Irenaeus  (Haeres. 
III.  1)  says,  that  "  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel,  while  Peter  and 
Paul  were  in  Rome  preaching  the  gospel  and  founding  the 
church  there."  And  Eusebius  (Chron.  ad  ann.  2  Claudii)  says, 
"Peter  having  founded  the  church  at  Antioch,  departed  for 
Rome,  preaching  the  gospel."  lioth  these  statements  are  incor- 
rect. Peter  did  not  found  the  church  at  Antioch,  nor  did  he 
and  Paul  preach  together  at  Rome.  That  Peter  was  not  at 
Rome  prior  to  Paul's  visit  appears  from  the  entire  silence  of 

*  Pessimus  quisque,  spretis  religionibus  jjatriis,  tributa  et  stipes  illuc  congcrcbat, 
nndc  auctao  .Fudacorum  res. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

this  epistle  on  the  subject;  and  from  no  mention  being  made 
of  the  fact  in  any  of  the  letters  written  from  Rome  by  Paul 
during  his  imprisonment.  The  tradition  that  Peter  ever  was  at 
Rome  rests  on  very  uncertain  authority.  It  is  first  mentioned 
by  Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
and  from  that  time  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  received. 
The  account  is  in  itself  improbable,  as  Peter's  field  of  labour 
was  in  the  east,  about  Babylon;  and  as  the  statement  of  Diony- 
sius is  full  of  inaccuracies.  He  makes  Peter  and  Paul  the 
founders  of  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  makes  the  same  assertion 
regarding  the  church  at  Rome,  neither  of  which  is  true.  He 
also  says  that  Paul  and  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  same 
time  at  Rome,  which,  from  the  silence  of  Paul  respecting  Peter 
during  his  last  imprisonment,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improba- 
ble.* History,  therefore,  has  left  us  ignorant  of  the  time  when 
this  church  was  founded,  and  the  persons  by  whom  the  work 
was  effected. 

The  condition  of  the  congregation  may  be  inferred  from  the 
circumstances  already  mentioned,  and  from  the  drift  of  the 
apostle's  letter.  As  the  Jews  and  proselytes  were  very  nume- 
rous at  Rome,  the  early  converts,  as  might  be  expected,  were 
from  both  these  classes.  The  latter,  however,  seem  greatly 
to  have  predominated,  because  we  find  no  such  evidence  of  a 
tendency  to  Judaism,  as  is  supposed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians.  Paul  no  where  seems  to  apprehend  that  the  church  at 
Rome  would  apostatize  as  the  Galatian  Christians  had  already 
done.  And  in  chapters  14  and  15,  his  exhortations  imply  that 
the  Gentile  party  were  more  in  danger  of  oppressing  the 
Jewish,  than  the  reverse.  Paul,  therefore,  writes  to  them  as 
Gentiles  (ch.  1:  13),  and  claims,  in  virtue  of  his  oflice  as  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles,  the  right  to  address  them  with  all  freedom  and 
authority  (15:  16).  The  congregation,  however,  was  not  com- 
posed exclusively  of  this  class;  many  converts,  originally  Jews, 
were  included  in  their  numbers,  and  those  belonging  to  the 
other  class  were  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  Jewish 
opinions.  The  apostle,  therefore,  in  this,  as  in  all  his  other  epis- 
tles addressed  to  congregations  similarly  situated,  refutes  those 
doctrines  of  the  Jews  which  were  inconsistent  with  the  gospel, 

*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  Vol.  3,  p.  203,  and  Neander's  Geschichte  det 
Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  456. 

2 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

and  answers  those  objections,  which  they  and  those  under  their 
influence  were  accustomed  to  urge  against  it.  These  different 
elements  of  the  early  churches  were  almost  always  in  conflict, 
])oth  as  to  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  Jews  insisted, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  on  their  peculiar  privileges  and  cus- 
toms, and  the  Gentiles  disregarded,  and  at  times  despised  the 
scruples  and  prejudices  of  their  weaker  brethren.  The  opinions 
of  the  Jews  particularly  controverted  in  this  epistle  are,  1.  That 
connexion  with  Abraham  by  natural  descent  and  by  the  bond 
of  circumcision,  together  with  the  observance  of  the  law,  is 
suiFicient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God.  2.  That  the  blessings  of 
the  Messiah's  reign  were  to  be  confined  to  Jews  and  those  who 
would  consent  to  become  proselytes.  3.  That  subjection  to 
heathen  magistrates  was  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  the 
people  of  God,  and  with  their  duty  to  the  Messiah  as  king. 
There  are  clear  indications  in  other  parts  of  scripture,  as  well 
as  in  their  own  writings,  that  the  Jews  placed  their  chief  de- 
pendence upon  the  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham,  and  the 
peculiar  rites  and  ordinances  connected  with  it.  Our  Saviour, 
when  speaking  to  the  Jews,  tells  them,  "  Say  not,  we  have 
Abraham  to  our  father;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of 
these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham,"  (Luke  3:  8). 
It  is  clearly  implied  in  this  passage,  that  the  Jews  supposed, 
that  to  have  Abraham  as  their  father  was  sufficient  to  secure  the 
favour  of  God.  The  Rabbins  taught  that  God  had  promised 
Abraham  that  his  descendants,  though  wicked,  should  be  saved 
on  account  of  his  merit.  Justin  Martyr  mentions  this  as  the 
ground  of  confidence  of  the  Jews  in  his  day.  "  Your  Rabbins," 
he  says,  "  deceive  themselves  and  us  in  supposing  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  prepared  for  all  those  who  are  the  natural 
seed  of  Abraham,  even  though  they  be  sinners  and  unbelievers." 
[Dialogue  luith  Trypho.)  They  were  accustomed  to  say, 
"Great  is  the  virtue  of  circumcision;  no  circumcised  person 
enters  hell."  And  one  of  their  standing  maxims  was,  "  All 
Israel  hath  part  in  eternal  life."* 

The  second  leading  error  of  the  Jews  was  a  natural  result  of 

*  See  Raymundi  Martini  Pugio  Ficlei,  P.  III.  Disc.  .3,  c.  16.  Pococke's  Miscella- 
nea, p.  172,  227.  Witsii  Miscellanea,  P.  II.  p.  553.  Michaclis  Introduction  to 
the  N.  T.  vol.  3,  p.  93. 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

the  one  just  referred  to.  If  salvation  was  secured  by  con- 
nexion with  Abraham,  then  none  who  were  not  united  to  their 
great  ancestor  could  be  saved.  There  is  no  opinion  of  the  Jews 
more  conspicuous  in  the  sacred  writings,  than  that  they  were 
greatly  superior  to  the  Gentiles,  that  the  theocracy  and  all  its 
blessings  belonged  to  them,  and  that  others  could  attain  even 
an  inferior  station  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  only  by  be- 
coming Jews. 

The  indisposition  of  the  Jews  to  submit  to  heathen  magis- 
trates arose  partly  from  their  high  ideas  of  their  own  dignity, 
and  their  contempt  for  other  nations,  partly  from  their  erro- 
neous opinions  of  the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and 
partly,  no  doubt,  from  the  peculiar  hardships  and  oppressions 
to  which  they  were  exposed.  The  prevalence  of  this  indispo- 
sition among  them  is  proved  by  its  being  a  matter  of  discussion 
whether  it  was  even  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar;  by  their 
assertion  that,  as  Abraham's  seed,  they  were  never  in  bondage 
to  any  man;  and  by  their  constant  tumults  and  rebellions,  which 
led  first  to  their  banishment  from  Rome,  and,  finally,  to  the 
utter  destruction  of  their  city.  The  circumstances  of  the 
church  at  Rome,  composed  of  both  Jewish  and  Gentile  con- 
verts; surrounded  by  Jews  who  still  insisted  on  the  necessity 
of  circumcision,  of  legal  obedience,  and  of  connexion  with  the 
family  of  Abraham  in  order  to  salvation;  and  disposed  on  many 
points  to  differ  among  themselves,  sufficiently  account  for  the 
character  of  this  epistle. 

Time  and  place  of  its  composition. 
There  are  no  sufficient  data  for  fixing  accurately  and  certainly 
the  chronology  of  the  life  and  writings  of  the  apostle  Paul.  It 
is,  therefore,  in  most  cases,  only  by  a  comparison  of  various 
circumstances  that  an  approximation  to  the  date  of  the  principal 
events  of  his  life  can  be  made.  With  regard  to  this  epistle,  it 
is  plain,  from  its  contents,  that  it  was  written  just  as  Paul  was 
about  to  set  out  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  15th 
chapter  he  says,  that  the  Christians  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
had  made  a  collection  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem,  and  that 
he  was  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  that  city  (v.  25).  This 
same  journey  is  mentioned  in  Acts  20,  and  occurred  most  pro- 
bably in  the  spring  (see  Acts  20:  16)  of  the  year  58  or  59. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

This  date  best  suits  the  account  of  his  long  imprisonment,  first 
at  Cesarea  and  then  at  Rome,  of  four  years,  and  his  probable 
liberation  in  62  or  63.  His  subsequent  labours  and  second  im- 
prisonment would  fill  up  the  intervening  period  of  two  or  three 
years  to  the  date  of  his  martyrdom,  towards  the  close  of  the 
reign  of  Nero.  That  this  epistle  was  w-ritten  from  Corinth 
appears  from  the  special  recommendation  of  Phebe,  a  deacon- 
ess of  the  neighbouring  church,  who  was  probably  the  bearer 
of  the  letter  (ch.  16:  1);  from  the  salutations  of  Erastus  and 
Gaius,  both  residents  of  Corinth,  to  the  Romans  (ch,  16:  23); 
compare  2  Tim.  4:  20,  and  1  Cor.  1:  14;  and  from  the  account 
given  in  Acts  20:  2,  3,  of  Paul's  journey  through  Macedonia  into 
Greece,  before  his  departure  for  Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  the  contributions  of  the  churches  for  the  poor  in  that 
city. 

Jluthenticity  of  the  Epistle. 
That  this  epistle  was  written  by  the  apostle  Paul,  admits  of 
no  reasonable  doubt.     1.  It,  in  the  first  place,  purports  to  be  his. 
It  bears  his  signature,  and  speaks  throughout  in  his  name.    2.  It 
has  uniformly  been  recognised  as  his.     From  the  apostolic  age 
to  the  present  time,  it  has  been  referred  to   and  quoted  by  a 
regular  series  of  authors,  and  recognised  as  of  divine  autliority 
in  all  the  churches.     It  would  be  requisite,  in  order  to  disprove 
its  authenticity,  to  account  satisfactorily  for  these  facts,  on  the 
supposition  of  the  epistle  being  spurious.     The  passages  in  the 
early  writers,  in  which  this  epistle  is  alluded  to  or  cited,  are  very 
numerous,  and  may  be  seen  in  Lardner's  Credihility,  Vol.  II. 
3.  The  internal  evidence  is  no  less  decisive  in  its  favour,     [a)  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  evidently  the  production  of  a  Jew,  familiar 
with  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, because  the  language  and  style  are  such  as  no  one,  not 
thus  circumstanced,  could  adopt;  and  because  the  whole  letter 
evinces  such  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  Jewish  opinions  and 
prejudices,     {b)  It  agrees  perfectly  in   style   and  manner  with 
the  other  epistles  of  this  apostle,     (f)  It  is,  in  the  truth  and  im- 
portance of  its  doctrines  and  in  the  elevation  and  purity  of  its 
sentiments,  immeasurably  superior  to  any  uninspired  produc- 
tion of  the  age  in  which  it  appeared.     A  conijwrison  of  the 
genuine  apostoHc  writings  with  the  spurious  productions  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

first  and  second  centuries,  affords  one  of  the  strongest  collateral 
evidences  of  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  former. 
(d)  The  incidental  or  undesigned  coincidences,  as  to  matters  of 
fact,  between  this  epistle  and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  such  as  to  afford  the  clearest  evidence  of  its  having  proceed- 
ed from  the  pen  of  the  apostle.  Compare  Rom.  15:  25 — 31, 
with  Acts  20:  2,  3.  24:  17.  1  Cor.  16:  1—4.  2  Cor.  8:  1 — 4. 
9:  2.  Rom.  16:  21—23  with  Acts  20:  4.  Rom.  16:  3,  et  seqq. 
with  Acts  18:  2,  18 — 26.  1  Cor.  16:  19,  &c.  (see  Paley's  Horae 
Paulinae).  4.  Besides  these  positive  proofs,  there  is  the  im- 
portant negative  consideration,  that  there  are  no  grounds  for 
questioning  its  authenticity.  There  are  no  discrepances  be- 
tween this  and  other  sacred  writings;  no  counter  testimony 
among  the  early  fathers;  no  historical  or  critical  difficulties 
which  must  be  solved  before  it  can  be  recognised  as  the  work 
of  Paul.  There  is,  therefore,  no  book  in  the  bible,  and  there 
is  no  ancient  book  in  the  world,  of  which  the  authenticity  is 
more  certain  than  that  of  this  epistle. 

Analysis  of  the  Epistle. 

The  epistle  consists  of  three  parts.  The  first  which  includes 
the  first  eight  chapters,  is  occupied  in  the  discussion  of  the 
doctrine  of  justification  and  its  consequences.  The  second,  em- 
bracing chapters  9,  10,  11,  treats  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  rejection  and  future  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  third 
consists  of  practical  exhortations,  and  salutations  to  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome. 

The  first  part  the  apostle  commences  by  saluting  the 
Roman  Christians,  commending  them  for  their  faith,  and  ex- 
pressing his  desire  to  see  tjiem,  and  his  readiness  to  preach  the 
gospel  at  Rome.  This  readiness  was  founded  on  the  conviction 
that  the  gospel  revealed  the  only  method  b}^  which  men  can 
be  saved,  viz.  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  method  is 
equally  applicable  to  all  mankind.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  ch. 
1:  1 — 17.  Paul  thus  introduces  the  two  leading  topics  of  the 
epistle. 

In  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  respecting  justification,  he 
first  proves  that  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  justified  by  their  own 
works,  ch.  1:  18 — 39;  and  then  establishes  the  same  position 
in  reference  to  the  Jews,  ch.  2.  3:  1 — 20.     Having  thus  shown 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

that  the  method  of  justification  by  works  was  unavailable  for 
sinners,  he  unfolds  that  method  which  is  taught  in  the  gospel, 
ch.  3:  21 — 31.  The  truth  and  excellence  of  this  method  he 
confirms  in  chs.  4th  and  5th.  The  obvious  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  gratuitous  acceptance,  that  it  must  lead  to  the  indul- 
gence of  sin,  is  answered,  and  the  true  design  and  operation  of 
the  law  are  exhibited  in  chs.  6th  and  7th;  and  the  complete 
security  of  all  who  confide  in  Christ  is  beautifully  unfolded  in 
chapter  8. 

In  arguing  against  the  Gentiles,  Paul  assumes  the  principle 
that  God  will  punish  sin,  ch.  1 :  18,  and  then  proves  that  they 
are  justly  chargeable  both  with  impiety  and  immorality,  be- 
cause, though  they  possessed  a  competent  knowledge  of  God, 
they  did  not  worship  him,  but  turned  unto  idols,  and  gave 
themselves  up  to  all  kinds  of  iniquity,  ch.  1:  19 — 32. 

He  commences  his  argument  with  the  Jews  by  expanding  the 
general  principle  of  the  divine  justice,  and  especially  insisting 
on  God's  impartiality  by  showing  that  he  will  judge  all  men, 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  according  to  their  works,  and  according  to 
the  light  they  severally  enjoyed,  ch.  2:  1 — 16.  He  shows 
that  the  Jews,  when  tried  by  these  rules,  are  as  justly 
and  certainly  exposed  to  condemnation  as  the  Gentiles,  ch. 
2:  17—29. 

The  peculiar  privileges  of  the  Jews  afford  no  ground  of  hope 
that  they  will  escape  being  judged  on  the  same  principles  with 
other  men,  and  when  thus  judged,  they  are  found  to  be  guilty 
before  God.  All  men,  therefore,  are,  as  the  scriptures  abun- 
dantly teach,  under  condemnation,  and,  consequently,  cannot  be 
justified  by  their  own  works,  ch.  3:  1 — 20. 

The  gospel  proposes  the  only  method  by  which  God  will 
justify  men;  a  method  which  is  entirely  gratuitous;  the  condi- 
tion of  which  is  faith;  which  is  founded  on  the  redemption  of 
Christ;  which  reconciles  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,  hum- 
bles man,  lays  the  foundation  for  an  universal  religion,  and  es-. 
tablishcs  the  law,  ch.  3:  21 — 31. 

The  truth  of  this  doctrine  is  evinced  from  the  example  of 
Abraham,  the  testimony  of  David,  the  nature  of  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
law.  He  proposes  the  conduct  of  Abraham  as  an  example  and 
encouragement  to  Christians,  ch.  4:  1 — 25. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

Justification  by  faith  in  Christ  secures  peace  with  God,  pre- 
sent joy  and  the  assurance  of  eternal  life,  ch.  5:  1 — 11.  The 
method,  therefore,  by  which  God  proposes  to  save  sinners,  is 
analogous  to  that  by  which  they  were  tirst  brought  under  con- 
demnation. As  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one,  sentence 
has  passed  on  all  men  to  condemnation;  so  on  account  of  the 
righteousness  of  one,  all  are  justified,  ch.  5:  12 — 21. 

The  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  justification  of  sinners  cannot 
lead  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  because  such  is  the  nature  of  union 
with  Christ,  and  such  the  object  for  which  he  died,  that  all  who  re- 
ceive the  benefitsof  his  death,  experience  the  sanctifyinginfluence 
of  his  life,  ch.  6:  1 — 11.  Besides,  the  objection  in  question  is 
founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  effect  and  design  of  the 
law,  and  of  the  nature  of  sanctification.  Deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  the  law  and  from  a  legal  spirit  is  essential  to  holi- 
ness. When  the  Christian  is  delivered  from  this  bondage,  he 
becomes  the  servant  of  God,  and  is  brought  under  an  influence 
which  effectually  secures  his  obedience,  ch.  6:  12 — 23. 

As,  therefore,  a  woman,  in  order  to  be  married  to  a  second 
husband,  must  first  be  freed  from  her  former  one,  so  the  Chris- 
tian, in  order  to  be  united  to  Christ  and  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
God,  must  first  be  freed  from  the  law,  ch.  7:  1 — 6. 

This  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  does  not  arise 
from  the  fact  that  the  law  is  evil,  but  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  The  law  is  but  the  authoritative  declaration  of  duty; 
which  cannot  alter  the  state  of  the  sinner's  heart.  Its  real 
operation  is  to  produce  the  conviction  of  sin  (vs.  7 — 13),  and, 
in  the  renewed  mind,  to  excite  approbation  and  complacency 
in  the  excellence  which  it  exhibits,  but  it  cannot  effectually 
secure  the  destruction  of  sin.  This  can  only  be  done  by  the 
grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  ch.  7:  7 — 25. 

Those  who  are  in  Christ,  therefore,  are  perfectly  safe.  They 
are  freed  from  the  law;  they  have  the  indwelling  of  the  life- 
giving  Spirit;  they  are  the  children  of  God;  they  are  chosen, 
called  and  justified  according  to  the  divine  purpose;  and  they 
are  the  objects  of  the  unchanging  love  of  God,  ch.  8:  1 — 39. 

The  second  part  of  the  epistle  relates  to  the  persons  to 
whom  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom  may  properly  be  offer- 
ed, and  the  purposes  of  God  respecting  the  Jews.  In  entering 
upon  this  subject,  the  apostle,  after  assuring  his  kindred  of  his 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

affection,  establishes  the  position  that  God  has  not  bound  him- 
self to  regard  as  his  children  all  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham,  but  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  choose  whom  he  will 
to  be  heirs  of  his  kingdom.  The  right  of  God  to  have  mercy 
on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  he  proves  from  the  declarations  of 
scripture  and  from  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.  He 
shows  that  this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  is  not  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  character  or  man's  responsibility, 
because  God  simply  chooses  from  among  the  undeserving  whom 
he  will  as  the  objects  of  his  mercy,  and  leaves  others  to  the  just 
recompense  of  their  sins,  ch,  9:  1 — 24. 

God  accordingly  predicted  of  old  that  he  would  call  the 
Gentiles  and  reject  the  Jews.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
on  account  of  their  unbelief,  ch.  9:  25 — 33.  10:  1 — 5.  The 
two  methods  of  justification  are  then  contrasted,  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  legal  method  is  impracticable,  but  that  the 
method  proposed  in  the  gospel  is  simple  and  easy,  and  adapted 
to  all  men.  It  should,  therefore,  agreeably  to  the  revealed  pur- 
pose of  God,  be  preached  to  all  men,  ch.  10:  6 — 21. 

The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not  total;  many  of  that  genera- 
tion were  brought  into  the  church,  who  were  of  the  election  of 
grace,  ch,  11 :  1 — 10.  Neither  is  this  rejection  final.  There  is 
to  be  a  future  and  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  to  Christ,  and 
thus  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  ch.  11 :  11 — 36. 

The  third  or  practical  part  of  the  epistle,  consists  of  direc- 
tions, first,  as  to  the  general  duties  of  Christians  in  their  various 
relations  to  God,  ch.  12;  secondly,  as  to  their  political  or  civil 
duties,  ch.  13;  and,  thirdly,  as  to  their  ecclesiastical  duties,  or 
those  duties  which  they  owe  to  each  other  as  members  of  the 
church,  ch.  14.  15:  1—13. 

The  epistle  concludes  with  some  account  of  Paul's  labours 
and  purposes,  ch.  15:  14 — 33,  and  with  the  usual  salutations, 
ch.  IG. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  ROMANS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Contents. 
This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  extends  to  the 
close  of  V.  17,  and  contains  the  general  introduction  to  the  epis- 
tle. The  second  commences  with  v.  18,  and  extends  to  the 
close  of  the  chapter  :  it  contains  the  argument  of  the  apostle  to 
prove  that  the  declaration  contained  in  vs.  16,  17,  that  justi- 
fication can  only  be  obtained  by  faith,  is  true  with  regard  to 
the  heathen. 

CHAP.  1:  1—17. 

Jinalysis. 

This  section  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first,  from  v.  1  to  7 
inclusive,  is  a  salutatory  address;  the  second,  from  v.  8  to  17, 
is  the  introduction  to  the  epistle.  Paul  commences  by  an- 
nouncing himself  as  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  set  apart 
to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  v.  1.  Of  this  gospel,  he  says, 
1.  That  it  was  promised,  and  of  course  partially  exhibited  in 
the  Old  Testament,  v.  2.  2.  That  its  great  subject  was  Jesus 
Christ,  V.  3.  Of  Christ  he  says,  that  he  was,  as  to  his  human 
nature,  the  Son  of  David;  but  as  to  his  divine  nature,  the  Son 
of  God,  vs.  3,  4.  From  this  divine  person  he  had  received 
his  office  as  an  apostle.  The  object  of  this  office  was  to  bring 
men  to  believe  the  gospel ;  and  it  contemplated  all  nations  as 
the  field  of  its  labour,  v.  5.  Of  course  the  Romans  were  includ- 
ed, V.  6.  To  the  Roman  Christians,  therefore,  he  wishes  grace 
and  peace,  v.  7.     Thus  far  the  salutation. 

Having  shown  in  what  character,  and  by  what  right  he  ad- 
dressed them,  the  apostle  introduces  the  subject  of  his  letter  by 


18  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

expressing  to  them  his  respect  and  affection.  He  thanks  God 
not  only  that  they  believed,  but  that  their  faith  was  universally 
known  and  talked  of,  v.  9.  As  an  evidence  of  his  concern  for 
them,  he  mentions,  1.  That  he  prayed  for  them  constantly,  v.  9. 
2.  That  he  longed  to  see  them,  vs.  10, 11.  3.  That  this  wish  to 
see  them  arose  from  a  desire  to  do  them  good,  and  to  reap  some 
fruit  of  his  ministry  among  them,  as  well  as  among  other  Gen- 
tiles, vs.  12,  13.  Because  he  was  under  obligation  to  preach  to 
all  men,  wise  and  unwise,  he  was  therefore  ready  to  preach 
even  at  Rome,  vs.  14,  15.  This  readiness  to  preach  arose  from 
the  high  estimate  he  entertained  of  the  gospel.  And  his  rever- 
ence for  the  gospel  was  founded  not  on  its  excellent  system  of 
morals  merely,  but  on  its  efficacy  in  saving  all  who  believe, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  v.  16.  This  efficacy  of  the  gospel 
arises  from  its  teaching  the  true  method  of  justification,  that  is, 
the  method  of  justification  by  faith,  v.  17.  It  will  be  perceived 
how  naturally  and  skilfully  the  apostle  introduces  the  two  great 
subjects  of  the  epistle — the  method  of  salvation,  and  the  persons 
to  whom  it  may  properly  be  offered. 

Commentary. 

(1)  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apos- 
tle, separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God.  Paul.  Jewish,  as 
other  oriental  names  were  generally  significant.  Thus  Saul 
means  the  demanded,  or  asked  for.  These  names  were  very 
frequently  changed,  on  the  occurrence  of  any  remarkable  event 
in  the  life  of  those  who  bore  them;  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and 
Jacob,  Gen.  17:  5.  32:  28.  This  was  especially  the  case  when 
the  individual  was  advanced  to  some  new  office  or  dignity, 
Gen.  41:  45.  Dan.  1:  6,  7.  Hence  a  new  name  is  sometimes 
equivalent  to  a  new  dignity,  Apoc.  3:17.  As  Paul  seems  to 
have  received  this  name  shortly  after  he  entered  on  his  duties 
as  an  apostle,  it  is  often  supposed,  and  not  improbably,  that  it 
was  on  account  of  this  call  that  his  name  was  changed.  Thus 
Simon,  when  chosen  to  be  an  apostle,  was  called  Cephas  or 
Peter,  John  1:  42.  Matt.  10:  2.  Since,  however,  it  was  very 
common  for  those  Jews  who  associated  much  with  foreigners 
to  have  two  names,  one  Jewish  and  the  other  Greek  or  Roman; 
sometimes  entirely  distinct,  as  Hillel  and  PoUio;  sometimes 
nearly  related,  as  Silas  and  Silvanus,  it  is  perhaps  more  proba- 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  19 

ble  that  the  apostle  was  called  Saul  among  the  Jews,  and  Paul 
among  the  heathen.  As  he  was  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  all  his  epistles,  except  that  to  the  Hebrews,  were  addressed 
to  churches  founded  among  the  heathen,  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  he  constantly  called  himself  Paul  instead  of  Saul.  He 
styles  himself  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  term  is  often 
used  to  express  the  relation  in  which,  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  apostles  stood  to  Christ,  as  in  Gal.  1:  10.  Phil.  1:  1. 
&c.,  as  in  the  Old  Testament  the  phrase  6'ery«;z/f  o/ Go^  ex- 
presses the  relation  in  which  any  one  employed  in  his  special 
service  stood  to  God,  Jos.  24:  29.  Numb.  12:  7.  Judges  2:  8,  &c. 
&c.  It  is  therefore  a  general  official  designation. 
•  Called  'an  apostle.  The  word  rendered  called,  means  also 
chosen,  appointed,  see  v.  6  and  7  of  this  chapter.  1  Cor.  1:  1 
and  24.  Rom.  8:  28.  compare  Isaiah  48:  2.  "Hearken  unto 
me,  0  Jacob  and  Israel  my  called,"  i.  e.  my  chosen.  51:  2. 
42:  6.  In  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament  this  word  is 
rarely  if  ever  used  in  reference  to  one  externally  called  or  in- 
vited to  any  office  or  blessing,  but  uniformly  expresses  the  idea 
of  an  effectual  calling,  or  of  a  selection  and  appointment.  Paul 
begins  many  of  his  epistles  by  claiming  to  be  thus  divinely 
commissioned  as  an  apostle,  because  his  appointment  was  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  other  apostles,  and  its  validity  had  frequent- 
ly been  called  in  question. 

The  term  apostle  or  messenger,  with  few  exceptions,  is  ap- 
plied exclusively  to  those  thirteen  individuals  appointed  by 
Jesus  Christ  to  deliver  to  men  the  message  of  salvation,  to  au- 
thenticate that  message  by  signs  and  wonders,  Heb.  3:  4,  and 
especially  by  their  testimony  as  eye  witnesses  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  Acts  1:  22.  2:  32.  3:  15.  1  Cor.  15:  15;  and  to 
organize  the  Christian  church  by  the  appointment  of  officers 
and  the  general  ordering  of  its  affairs.  It  was  therefore  neces- 
sary that  an  apostle  should  have  seen  Christ  after  he  arose  from 
the  dead,  1  Cor.  9:1. 

Separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God.  The  word  rendered 
separated  expresses  the  idea  both  of  selection  and  appointment, 
Levit.  20:  24,26.  Acts  13:  2.  Gal.  1:  15.  Paul  was  chosen  and 
set  apart  to  preach  the  gospel  of  God,  that  is,  the  gospel  of  which 
God  is  the  author. 

(2)    Which  he  had  promised  afore  by  his  prophets  in  the 


20  ~  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

lioJy  scriptures.  It  was  peculiarly  pertinent  to  the  apostle's 
object  to  state,  that  the  gospel  which  he  taught  was  not  a  new 
doctrine,'  much  less  inconsistent  with  writings  which  his  read- 
ers knew  to  be  of  divine  authority.  This  idea  he  therefore 
frequently  repeats  in  reference  to  the  method  of  salvation,  eh.  3: 
21.  10:  11,  &c.;  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  ch.  9:  27,  33.  10:  20, 
21;  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  ch.  9:  25.  10:  19,  &c.  see 
Luke  24:  44.  John  12:  16.  Acts  10:  43. 

(3,  4)  Concerning  his  So7i  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  &c. 
This  verse  is  to  be  connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  first, 
and  states  the  grand  subject  of  that  gospel  which  Paul  was 
appointed  to  preach.  That  subject  which  includes  all  others, 
is  the  Son  of  God.  Having  mentioned  the  name,  Paul  imme- 
diately declares  the  nature  of  this  exalted  personage.  The 
passage  which  follows  is  therefore  peculiarly  interesting,  as 
giving  a  clear  exhibition  of  the  apostle's  view  of  the  character 
of  Christ,  and  the  import  of  the  phrase  Son  of  God. 

There  are  three  leading  interpretations  of  this  passage.  1. 
According  to  the  first,  the  meaning  is,  'Jesus  Christ  was,  as  to 
his  human  nature,  the  So  i  of  David  ;  but  he  was  clearly  de- 
monstrated to  be,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  the  Son  of  God,  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead.'  2.  According  to  the  second, 
the  passage  means,  'Christ  was,  in  his  state  of  humiliation,  the 
Son  of  David,  but  was  constituted  the  Son  of  God  in  his  state 
of  exaltation,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  or,  after  his 
resurrection.'  3.  According  to  the  third,  'Christ  was  the  Son 
of  David,  as  to  his  human  nature,  but  was  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  agreeably  to  the  scriptures,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.' 

The  first  of  these  interpretations  is  recommended  by  the 
following  considerations.  1.  The  sense  which  it  assigns  to 
the  several  clauses  may  be  justified  by  usage,  and  is  required 
by  the  context.  This  will  appear  from  the  examination  of 
each,  as  they  occur.  Which  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh.  Was  made,  i.  e.  was  born,  see  the 
same  sense  of  the  word  here  used.  Gal.  4:  4.  John  8:  41. 
1  Peter  3:  6.  The  plirasc  according  to  the  flesh,  may,  con- 
sidered by  itself,  be  very  variously  explained.  As  the  word 
flesh,  apart  from  its  literal  and  obvious  meaning,  is  very  fre- 
quently used  for  mrn,  as  in  the  phrases  all  flesh,  no  flesh,  &c.; 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  21 

so  it  is  used  for  human  nature,  and  commonly,  when  employed 
in  reference  to  men,  for  the  nature  of  man,  considered  in  itself, 
as  apart  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  therefore,  with  the  asso- 
ciated ideas  of  weakness  and  corruption.    Hence,  in  the  phrases 
"to  be  born  of  the  flesh,"  John  3:  6;  "to  be  in  the  flesh," 
Rom.  8:  7;  "to  live  after  the  flesh,"  Rom.  8:  17;  "the  works 
of  the  flesh,"  Gal.  5:   17;  and  in  others  of  the  same  kind,  the 
word  expresses  the  idea  of  human  nature  considered  as  corrupt. 
But  these  accessary  ideas  are  of  course  excluded,  when  the 
word  is  used  in  reference  to  Christ,  as  in  the  phrases  "has  come 
in  the  flesh,"  1  John  4:2;  "was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  1  Tim. 
3:   16;  "became  flesh,"  John  1:   14,  &c.     In  all  these  cases, 
it  stands  for  human  nature,  as  such,  not  merely  for  the  body 
or  visible  part  of  man,  nor  for  his  external  condition  or  circum- 
stances, but  for  all  that  Christ,  who  was  made  like  unto  his 
brethren,  yet  without  sin,  had  in  common  with  otherimen.     So 
in  this  passage,  and  the  parallel  one,  ch.  9:  5,  as  to  the  flesh, 
means  in  as  far  as  he  was  a  man,  or  as  to  his  human  nature. 
This  interpretation  is  therefore  according  to  usage,  and  the 
natural  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  secondly  required  by  the  context. 
In  what  sense  was  Christ  the  son  of  David,  or  descended  from 
the  family  of  David,  but  as  he  was  a  man,  or  as  to  his  human 
nature?     Thirdly,  the  antithesis  requires  this  interpretation,  as 
to  the  one  nature  he  was  the  Son  of  David:  as  to  the  other  ihe 
Son  of  God.     And  fourthly,  the  passage  in  ch.  9:  5,  in  which  it 
is  said,  that  Christ  was,  as  to  the  flesh,  as  a  man,  descended 
from  the  Israelites,  confirms  this  interpretation,    jlnd  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  with  poiver.     That  the  Vv^ord  rendered 
declared  has,  in  this  case,  that  meaning,  may  be  argued,  1,  From 
its  etymology.     It  comes  from  a  word  signifying  a  limit  or 
boundary,  and  literally  means  to  set  limits  to,  to  define,  and 
such,  in  usage,  is  its  frequent  signification.     To  define  is  nearly 
related  both  to  appointing, or  to  naming,  declaring,  exhibiting 
a  person  or  thing  in  its  true  nature.    In  the  New  Testament, 
indeed  the  word,  as  in  common  Greek,  is  used  generally  to 
express  the  former  idea,  viz.  that  of  constituting,  or  appointing; 
but  the  sense  which  our  version  gives  it  is  in  many  cases 
involved  in  the  other,  Acts  10:  42.  17:  31.     2.  The  Greek 
commentators,  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret,  both  so  explain  the 
word.      So   does  the   Syriac   version.      3.    This   explanation 


22  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

supposes  the  word  to  be  used  in  a  popular  and  general  sense, 
but  does  not  assign  to  it  a  new  meaning.  It  signifies,  says 
Morus,  in  common  life,  /  confirm,  I  cause  it  to  he  certain. 
So  that  the  expression  of  the  apostle  means,  "it  is  confirmed 
or  rendered  certain  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.''  3.  Reference 
may  be  made  to  that  familiar  biblical  usage,  according  to  which 
words  are  used  declaratively.  Thus,  to  make  guilty,  is  to  pro- 
nounce to  be  guilty;  to  make  just,  is  to  pronounce  to  be  just; 
to  make  unclean,  is  to  declare  to  be  unclean.  Hence,  admitting 
that  the  words  literally  mean,  'made  the  Son  of  God  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,'  they  may,  with  the  strictest 
regard  to  usage,  be  interpreted,  exhibited  as  inade,  declared 
to  be.^  4.  The  necessity  of  the  place  requires  this  interpre- 
tation ;  because  it  is  not  true  that  Christ  was  made  the  Son  of 
God  by  his  resurrection,  since  he  was  such  before  that  event. 
5.  The  passage,  unless  thus  explained,  is  inconsistent  with  other 
declarations  of  the  sacred  writers.  Acts  1 :  22,  &:c.,  which  speak 
of  Christ's  resurrection  as  the  evidence  of  what  he  was,  but 
not  as  making  him  either  Son  or  King. 

The  words  luith  power  may  either  be  connected  adjectively 
with  the  preceding  phrase,  and  the  meaning  be,  'the  powerful 
Son  of  God;'  or,  which  is  preferable,  adverbially  with  the 
word  declared,  'he  was  powerfully,  i.  e,  clearly  declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God.'  As  when  the  sun  shines  out  in  his  power, 
he  is  seen  and  felt  in  all  his  glory,  so  Christ,  when  he  arose 
from  the  dead  was  recognized  at  once  as  the  Son  of  God. 

According  to  the  spirit  of  holi?iess.  That  these  words  can 
properly  be  interpreted  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  may  be 
argued,  1.  Because  the  term  spirit  is  obviously  applicable  to 
the  nature  of  God,  and  the  word  holiness,  which  here  qualifies 
it  adjectively,  expresses  every  thing  in  God,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  reverence.  It  therefore  exalts  the  idea  expressed 
by  spirit.  '  According  to  that  spiritual  essence  in  Christ, 
which  is  worthy  of  the  highest  reverence.'      2.  The  divine 

*  The  great  majority  of  commentators,  however  various  their  views  of  the  other 
parts  of  this  passage,  and  of  its  general  meaning,  agree  in  explaining  ofiffS't'vTog 
declared,  exhibited.  Besides  the  older  commentators,  see  Koppe,  wlio  translates 
Declaratus  per  resurrectionem  Jilius  Dei.  Flatt,  Fi/r  Gottes  Sohn,  krafciff 
erklart  -wurde.  "As  Son  of  God,  was  powerfully  declared."  Tholpck,  7*^  nun 
ojfcnhar  ivorden  aU  Gotten  Sohn.     "  Is  now  manifested  as  the  Son  of  God.'' 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  23 

nature  in  Christ  is  elsewhere  called  Spirit,  Heb.  9:  14,  "  If  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh;  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who,  with  an 
eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  unto  God."     That 
is,  '  if  the  blood  of  animals  was  of  any  avail,  how  much  more 
efficacious  must  be  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  who  was  possessed  of 
a  divine   nature.'      In   our  version   this  passage  is  rendered 
through,  instead  oi  with  an  eternal  Spirit;  but  this  docs  not  so 
well  suit  the  context,  nor  give  so  good  a  sense.     The  same 
preposition  is  often  rendered  with,  Rom.  2 :  27.  "  with    the 
letter,"   "with    circumcision,"  i.  e.  having  these  things,  see 
Wahl's  Clavis.     In   1  Tim.  3:  16,  "  God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh;  justified  in  the  Spirit,"  the    meaning  probably  is,  the 
fact  that  God  was  incarnate  was  proved,  and  his  claims  vindi- 
cated by  the  divine  nature,  which  exhibited  its  power  and  glory 
in    so    many    ways,  in  the  words  and  works  of  Christ.      In 
1  Peter  3:  18,  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  put  to  death  as  to 
the  flesh,  but  to  have  remained  alive  as  to  the  Spirit,  by  which 
Spirit  he  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison.     If  this  preaching 
refers  to  the  times  before  the  flood,  then  does  Spirit  here  also 
mean  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.     3.  The  antithesis  obviously 
demands  this  interpretation — as  to  the  flesh,  Christ  was  the  Son 
of  David,  as  to  the  Spirit,  the  Son  of  God:  if  the  flesh  means 
his  human,  the  Spirit  must  mean  his  divine  nature.     4.  It  is 
confirmed  by  a  comparison  with  ch.  9:  5.  there  the  two  natures 
of  Christ  are  also  brought  into  view  and  contrasted;  as  to  the 
flesh  he  was  an  Israelite,  but  as  to  his  higher  nature  he  is  God 
over  all  and  blessed  forever.     So  the  latter  clause  of  that  pas- 
sage answers  the  latter  clause  of  this;  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  is 
equivalent  with  being  God  over  all. 

By  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  That  is,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  was  the  great  decisive  evidence  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God;  it  was  the  public  acknowledgement  of  God  of  the 
validity  of  all  the  claims  which  Christ  had  made.  Hence  the 
apostles  were  appointed  as  witnesses  of  that  fact.  Acts  1 :  22. 
see  on  V.  1.  This,  of  course,  does  not  at  all  imply  that  the  res- 
urrection of  Christ  in  itself  was  any  proof  that  he  was  the  Son 
of  God,  any  further  than  it  was  a  proof  that  he  was  all  that  he 
had  claimed  to  be,  and  as,  in  its  attending  circumstances,  it  was 
a  display  of  his  divine  power.     He  had  power  to  lay  down  his 


24  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

life,  and  he  had  power  to  take  it  again.  This  clause  is  some- 
times rendered  "  after  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  The 
preposition  used  in  the  Greek  admits  of  cither  rendering;  but 
the  former  is  best  suited  to  the  context,  and  more  in  accordance 
with  the  manner  in  which  Paul  speaks  elsewhere  of  the  resur- 
rection.    See  the  passages  cited  above. 

The  first  argument  then  in  favour  of  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  which  has  just  been  given,  is,  that  the  sense  which 
it  assigns  to  all  the  clauses  may  be  justified,  and  is  required  by 
the  context.  2.  A  second  argument  is  derived  from  the  struc- 
ture of  the  passage.  As  remarked  above,  when  speaking  of  a 
particular  clause,  there  is  evidently  an  antithesis  between  the 
two  clauses,  as  to  the  flesh,  and  as  to  the  Spirit.  In  the  one 
view,  Christ  is  the  Son  of  David;  as  to  the  other,  the  Son  of 
God.  3.  It  is  accordant  with  what  is  elsewhere  taught  of  the 
Sonship  of  Christ,  John  5:  17.  10:  30—33.  Heb.  1:  4—8. 
4.  This  interpretation  should  be  adopted,  because  the  others  are 
pressed  with  serious,  if  not  fatal  objections.  The  second  inter- 
pretation mentioned  above  makes  the  passage  mean, '  Christ 
was,  as  to  his  low  condition,  the  Son  of  David;  but  was  made 
the  Son  of  God,  as  to  his  exalted  state,  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead.'  To  this  it  may  be  objected,  1.  That  it  assumes  an 
unusual,  and,  in  such  a  phrase  as  son  as  to  the  flesh,  an  unex- 
ampled sense  of  the  word  flesh.  2.  To  make  the  words  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  mean  according  to  his  exalted 
or  pneumatic  condition,  violates  all  usage.  No  passage  can  be 
found  in  which  the  word  so  rendered  means  exalted  state.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  how  it  can  have  this  sense.  Reference  is 
made  to  1  Tim.  3:  16.  Heb.  9:  14.  1  Peter  3:  IS,  in  support  of 
this  interpretation.  Let  the  reader  consult  these  passages,  and 
see  if  they  bear  out  this  exposition.  3.  It  affirms  that  Christ 
was  made  the  Son  of  God  by  or  after  his  resurrection.  This 
is  not  correct,  whatever  sense  be  given  to  the  term  Son  of  God. 
Christ  was  the  Messiah,  and  King  before,  as  well  as  after  his 
resurrection.  4.  The  resurrection  is  spoken  of  as  the  proof  of 
Christ's  various  glories,  but  not  as  his  advancement  to  Sonsliip. 
The  third  interpretation  differs  from  the  first  only  by  explaining 
the  clause  according,  or,  as  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  to  mean, 
agreeably  to  the  scriptures,  i.  e.  to  the  declarations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.     This  however  is  liable  to  two  objections.     1.  It 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  25 

is  not  the  apostle's  manner  of  referring  to  the  scriptures.  He 
generally  says,  'as  it  is  written/  'according  to  the  scriptures,' 
&c.  2.  It  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  antithesis:  as  to  the 
flesh,  and  as  to  the  Spirit  must  correspond ;  if  the  former 
means  'as  to  his  human  nature/  the  latter  cannot  mean 
'  according  to  the  scriptures.' 

The  reason  for  dwelling  at  such  length  on  this  passage,  is  its 
great  importance  in  the  decision  of  the  question,  why  Christ  is 
called  the  Son  of  God  ?  What  is  the  import  of  that  appellation  ? 
Does  it  express  his  dignity  as  Mediatorial  King,  or  his  intimate 
connexion  with  God  as  an  object  of  his  affection  ?  or  does  it  imply 
that  he  is  of  the  same  nature  with  God,  partaker  of  his  essence 
and  attributes?  Is  the  ground  of  its  application  the  eternal 
relation  between  the  first  and  second  persons  of  the  Trinity  ? 
These  are  important  questions.  The  term  Son  is  used  in 
scripture  to  express  such  a  variety  of  relations  that  nothing 
certain  can  be  inferred  from  the  mere  force  of  this  word.  It 
expresses  the  relation  of  derivation,  dependence,  possession, 
likeness,  intimate  connexion,  &c,,  in  very  various  modifications. 
It  is  therefore  used  in  a  multitude  of  phrases  foreign  to  the 
idiom  of  our  language;  as,  son  of  five  hundred  years;  sons 
of  Belial,  or  worthlessness;  son  of  death,  of  hunger,  of  destruc- 
tion, &c. ;  sons  of  the  kingdom;  sons  of  the  bride  chamber^ 
&c.  &c.  As,  however,  this  is  a  very  marked  distinction  kept 
up  in  the  scriptures  between  the  phrase  Son  of  God  in  the 
singular,  and  Sons  of  God  in  the  plural,  it  is  evident  that  little 
light  can  be  derived  from  the  mere  general  use  of  the  word 
Son,  as  to  the  precise  import  of  the  former  of  these  phrases. 
The  term  Son  of  God  is  used  in  reference  to  Jesus  Christ 
alone,  except  where,  for  an  obvious  reason,  it  is  applied  to 
Adam,  as  being  produced  by  the  immediate  power  of  God. 
There  is  therefore  a  reason  why  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of 
God,  which  applies  to  no  other  being  in  the  universe.  That 
this  reason  is  not  his  royal  dignity,  appears,  1.  Because  the 
term,  if  expressive  of  mere  exaltation  or  power,  would  not  be 
so  exclusively  applied  to  Christ,  but  be  given  to  other  royal 
persons.  2.  Because  it  is  very  nearly  a  gratuitous  assumption, 
that  kings  in  the  Old  Testament  are  called  sons  of  God  on 
account  of  their  office.  The  passages  referred  to  are  the  fol- 
lowing: Ps.  2:  7,  which,  as  it  refers  to  Christ,  can  prove  nothing 

4 


26  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

as  to  this  point.  Ps.  82:  6,  where  princes  are  called  "sons  of 
the  Most  High,"  which,  however,  may  mean  merely,  they  are 
highly  favoured  of  God,  treated  as  sons,  2  Sam.  7:  14,  "I  will 
be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son,"  means,  as 
applied  to  Solomon,  nothing  more  than  '  I  will  regard  and 
treat  him  as  a  father  does  a  son.'  Ps.  89:  27,  "  I  will  make 
him  my  first-born,"  i.  e.  '  I  will  treat  him  with  peculiar  favour.' 
It  is  therefore  very  far  from  being  a  familiar  usage  of  the  bible 
to  call  kings  sons  of  God,  on  account  of  their  exaltation  or 
dignity;  much  less  can  it  be  assumed  as  the  prominent,  if  not 
the  only  ground  for  designating  Christ  the  Son  of  God. 

If  there  is  nothing  in  the  usage  of  the  term  Son,  or  of  the 
phrase  sons  of  God,  which  can  fix  definitely  the  meaning  of 
the  appellation  now  in  question,  we  must  advert  to  those  cases 
in  which  either  the  ground  of  the  appellation  is  distinctly 
stated,  or  its  true  import  explained.  These  cases  are  of  course 
comparatively  few.  Christ  is  called  Jesus  in  a  multitude  of 
instances,  but  the  reason  of  his  being  so  called  is  stated  in  but 
one  or  two.  In  like  manner  he  is  very  frequently  called  the 
Son  of  God,  but  why  he  is  so  called  we  can  learn  only  from  the 
few  cases  just  referred  to.  In  this  passage,  for  example,  (Rom. 
1:  3,  4)  it  seems  to  be  definitely  asserted,  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  as  to  his  divine  nature;  and  of  course  the  ground 
of  his  being  so  called,  must  be  the  relation  between  that  nature 
and  the  eternal  Father.  In  John  5:  17,  Christ  calls  God  his 
Father  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  that  he  is  equal  with  God. 
This  is  the  interpretation  which  his  hearers  put  upon  his 
words,  and  one  which  Christ  himself  confirmed.  The  same  is 
the  case  in  John  10:  30 — 39,  where  Christ  declares  himself  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  in  such  a  sense  that  he  and  the  Father  are 
one.  In  John  1 :  14,  the  glory  of  Clirist,  which  proved  him  to 
be  God,  is  said  to  be  his  glory  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the 
Father,  compare  v.  IS.  In  Hebrews  1:  4 — 7,  it  is  argued,  in 
effect,  that  because  Christ  is  called  Son,  he  is  God;  higher  than 
the  angels,  and  worthy  of  their  worship.  These  and  other 
passages  prove  that  Clirist  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  because  he 
is  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father,  and  sustains  to  him  a 
mysterious  relation,  as  God,  which  lays  the  foundation  for  the 
appellation.  When  Christ  calls  himself  the  Son  of  God,  he 
claims  equality  with  God;  and  when  he  is  so  called  by  the 


ROMANS  1:  1—17  27 

sacred  writers,  this  equality  is  ascribed  to  him.  It  is  not  at  all 
necessary,  in  order  to  make  out  the  correctness  of  this  remark, 
to  show  that,  in  every  instance,  reference  is  had  to  his  divine 
nature.  Is  it  necessary  to  prove  that  the  appellation  Son  of 
man  has  uniformly  reference  to  his  human  nature,  in  order  to 
show  that  it  properly  implies  that  Christ  is  a  man  ?  These, 
and  all  other  designations  of  Christ,  no  matter  what  their  origin 
or  import,  are  frequently  used  to  designate  his  person.  Hence 
the  Son  is  said  to  give  life,  to  judge,  to  be  put  to  death,  to  be 
ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment,  to  be  subject  to  the  Father, 
&c.  In  all  these  cases  no  reference  is  had  to  the  import  of  the 
term  Son,  or  to  the  original  ground  of  its  application.  It  is 
merely  a  personal  designation.  In  like  manner,  Christ  is  said 
to  be  God;  to  have  died  upon  the  cross;  to  have  arisen  from 
the  dead,  &c.  The  Son  of  man  is  said  not  to  have  where  he 
may  lay  his  head;  to  be  in  heaven,  &c.  The  fact,  therefore, 
that  the  term  Son  is  often  applied  to  designate  the  person  of 
Christ,  even  when  the  immediate  reference  is  to  his  human 
nature,  cannot  prove  that  the  original  ground  of  its  application 
is  not  his  relation,  as  God,  to  the  Father;  or  that  its  application 
does  not  involve  the  assumption  or  ascription  of  equality  with 
God. 

Most  of  the  passages,  therefore,  which  give  us  any  definite 
information  on  the  nature  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  or  of  the 
reason  of  his  being  called  the  Son  of  God,  show  that  the  term 
Son  implies  a  participation  in  the  divine  nature,  and  an  ineffable 
relation  between  the  first  and  second  persons  of  the  Trinity. 
Even  if  there  were  others,  which  assigned  a  different  reason  for 
his  being  so  called,  it  would  only  prove  that  the  import  of  the 
term,  and  the  grounds  of  its  application  were  manifold,  and  not 
that  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  his  divine  nature. 
The  passage  in  Luke  1:  35,  seems  to  assign  the  miraculous 
conception  of  Christ  as  a  reason  for  his  being  called  the  Son  of 
God.  This  may  be  admitted,  and  all  that  has  been  said  as  to 
his  being  a  Son  in  a  sense  which  involves  equality  with  God, 
be  still  correct.  Those  who  give  this  sense  to  Luke  1 :  35, 
still  say,  that  the  principal  reason  for  his  being  called  the  Son 
of  God  is  his  exaltation  as  King,  The  declaration  of  the  angel 
to  the  Virgin  Mary,  may,  however,  be  understood  as  implying 
not  merely  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  to  be  miracu- 


28  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

lously  conceived,  but  also  that  the  divine  Being  was  to  come 
into  personal  union  with  that  nature,  and  hence  that  holy  thing, 
which  should  be  born  of  her,  should  be  called,  i.  e.  recognized 
as  divine. 

Acts  13:  33,  is  often  referred  to  as  proving  that  Christ  is 
called  the  Son  of  God  on  account  of  his  resurrection.  The 
passage  is  as  follows.  "God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  (the 
promise  made  to  the  fathers)  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  up  Jesus  again;  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second 
Psalm,  thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  On 
this  passage  it  may  be  remarked,  1.  Admitting  our  version  of 
it  to  be  correct,  the  inference  drawn  from  it  does  not  necessarily 
follow.  If  the  second  Psalm  v.  7,  means  '  Thou  art  my  Son, 
this  day  have  I  declared  or  exhibited  thee  as  such;'  then  it  is 
perfectly  pertinent  to  the  apostle's  object,  because  he  appeals  to 
the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  as  a  proof  that  God  had  recog- 
nized or  exhibited  him  as  his  Son:  which  is  precisely  what  is 
elsewhere  taught  when  the  resurrection  is  said  to  be  a  proof  of 
the  Sonship  of  the  Redeemer.  But,  2.  Our  version  of  Acts 
13:  33,  is,  in  all  probability,  incorrect.  The  word  rendered  he 
hath  raised  up  (Jesus)  again,  means  merely  he  hath  raised  up. 
Whether  it  refers  to  a  raising  up  from  the  dead,  or  to  a  calling 
into  existence,  or  to  a  certain  office,  depends  upon  the  context. 
Acts  3:  22,  "a  prophet  like  unto  me  will  God  raise  up,"  see 
Matt.  22:  24.  Acts  2:  30.  "Of  the  fruit  of  his  loins  he  would 
raise  up  Christ,"  Acts  7:18,  &c.  The  insertion  of  the  word 
again,  in  our  translation,  alters  the  sense,  and  is  altogether 
arbitrary.  The  meaning  probably  is,  'we  declare  unto  you  glad 
tidings,  how  the  promise  made  unto  the  fiithers  (the  promise 
referred  to  in  v.  23,  that  God  w^ould  raise  up  a  Saviour),  God 
hath  fulfilled  unto  us,  in  that  he  hath  raised  up  Jesus.'  There  is 
no  allusion  to  the  resurrection.  The  promise  referred  to  was 
not  that  Christ  should  rise  from  the  dead,  but  that  a  Saviour 
should  appear;  and  of  this,  the  second  Psalm  is  a  clear  prediction. 
In  v.  34,  Paul,  having  announced  the  glad  tidings  that  a  Saviour 
had  come,  introduces  another  subject,  "  But  that  he  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead,  (as  he  had  asserted  in  v.  30)  he  saith  on 
this  wise,  &c.;"  and  then  quotes  Ps.  16th,  in  proof  that  his 
rising  from  the  dead  had  been  predicted.  lience,  v.  33,  and  its 
quotation  from  Ps.  2d,  have  no  reference  to  the  resurrection, 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  29 

and  of  course  can  prove  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
Sonship.* 

(5)  By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship, 
&c.  Having  in  the  preceding  verses  set  forth  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  at  once  the  Son  of  David  and  the  Son  of  God, 
Paul  says  it  was  from  him,  and  not  from  any  inferior  source, 
that  he  has  received  his  authority.  This  point  he  often  insists 
upon,  Gal.  1:  1.  1  Cor.  1:1,  &c.  The  word  grace  means  favour, 
kindness,  and  is  often  metonymically  used  for  any  gift  proceed- 
ing from  kindness,  especially  unmerited  kindness.  Hence  all 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  graces,  unmerited  favours.  The 
greatest  of  God's  gifts,  after  that  of  his  Son,  is  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  this,  therefore,  in  the  bible,  and  in  common 
life,  is  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  grace.  The  word  may  be 
so  understood  here,  and  include  all  those  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  which  Paul  was  furnished  for  his  work.  The  two 
words  grace  and  apostleship  may  however  be  taken  together, 
and  mean  '  the  grace  or  favour  of  being  an  apostle;'  but  the  for- 
mer explanation  is  to  be  preferred. 

For  obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  nations,  for  his 
name.  Literally  unto  obedience  of  the  faith.  This  expresses 
the  design  or  object  for  which  the  office  of  apostle  was  conferred 
upon  Paul.  It  was  that  all  nations  might  be  made  obedient. 
Similar  modes  of  expression  are  frequent,  "  Baptism  unto  re- 
pentance," i.  e.  that  men  might  repent;  "  unto  salvation,"  that 
they  might  be  saved,  &c.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  word 
faith  is  to  be  understood  here  as  in  Gal.  1:  23,  "He  preacheth 
the  faith,  which  he  once  destroyed;"  and  frequently  elsewhere, 
for  the  object  of  faith,  or  for  the  exercise  of  belief.  Either 
gives  a  good  sense;  according  to  the  former,  the  meaning  is, 
'  that  all  nations  should  be  obedient  to  the  gospel;'  according 
to  the  latter, '  that  they  should  yield  that  obedience  which  consists 
in  faith.'  Bengel  unites  the  two.  The  former  is  the  most  com- 
mon explanation,  see  Acts  6:  7.  Among  all  nations  is  most 
naturally  connected  with    the  immediately  preceding  clause, 

*  See  on  tliis  subject,  besides  the  older  theologians,  such  as  Be  Moor  in  his 
Commentarius  Exegeticus  on  Makk's  Compend;  Knapp's  Theology,  translated 
by  Mr.  Woods;  Koppk's  Second  Excursus  to  his  Commentary  on  Galatians; 
Phofessor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller;  Dr.  Miller's  Letters  to  Professor 
Stuart;  and  the  BibUcal  Repertory  for  1829,  p.  429—456. 


30  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

*  that  obedience  might  be  promoted  among  all  nations.'  They 
may, however, be  referred  to  the  former  clause,' we  have  received 
the  apostleship  among  all  nations.'  The  words  for  his  name 
are  still  more  doubtful  as  to  their  connexion.  Some  join  them 
with  the  middle  clause,  '  for  obedience  of  faith  in  his  name,' 
see  Acts  2G:  18.  But  this  the  words  will  hardly  licar.  Others 
connect  them  with  the  first  clause,  '  apostleship  in  his  name,' 
2  Cor.  5:  20.  Others  again,  and  more  naturally,  to  the  whole 
preceding  clause.  '  Paul  was  an  apostle  that  all  nations  might 
be  obedient  to  the  honour  of  Jesus  Christ;'  that  is,  so  that  his 
name  may  be  knowi?.* 

(6)  Jimong  ivhom  are  ye  also  the  called  of  Jesus  Christ. 
If  the  gospel  contemplated  all  nations  as.  the  field  of  its  opera- 
tion, the  Romans  of  course  were  not  to  be  excluded.     They, 
i.  e.  the  persons  addressed,  were  of  the  number  of  those  who 
had  become  obedient  to  the  faith.      The  called  of  Jesus  Christ 
means  those  who  are  effectually  called,  not  invited  merely,  but 
made  actually  partakers  of  the  blessings  to  which  they  are 
called.    The  word  called  is  often,  therefore,  as  in  the  first  verse, 
equivalent  with  chosen,  see  the  passages  cited  on  that  verse.    In 
1  Cor.  1 :  24,  Christ  is  said  to  be  a  stumbling  block  to  one  class 
of  men,  and  foolishness  to  another;  "  but  to  those  that  are  called, 
the  power  of  God,  &c.;"  where  the  called  cannot  mean  those 
Avho  receive  the  external  call  merely:  but  those  who  are  effect- 
ually called.    Rev.  17:  14,  "those  who  arc  with  him  are  called, 
and  chosen,  and  faithful,"  see,  too,  the  frequent  use  of  different 
forms  of  the  verb  signifying  to  call,  Rom,  8:  30;  "them  he  also 
called,"  Jude  1:  1;  "to  the  called,"  1  Peter  5:  10.  2:  9.     Such 
a  call  is  in  fact  a  choice;  it  is  a  taken  one  from  among  many. 
Hence,  to  be  called,  is  to  be  chosen,  as  just  remarked.     Called 
of  Jesus  Christ  does  not  mean  called  by  Christ;  but  the  geni- 
tive expresses  the  idea  of  possession,  'the  called  ones  who 
belong  to  Christ,'  '  Christ's  called,  or  chosen  ones.' 

(7)  To  all  that  he  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be 
saints.  As  tliis  verse  contains  the  salutation,  it  is,  in  sense, 
immediately  connected  with  the  first.  'Paul  an  apostle  to  all 
that  be  at  Rome.'     All  that  intervenes  is  not  proj)crly  a  paren- 


*  Pro  nomine  orgo  tantundem   valet  acsi  dixissct,  ut  manifcstcni,  qualis  sit 
Christus. — Calviit. 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  31 

thesis,  but  an  accumulation  of  clauses,  one  growing  out  of  the 
other,  and  preventing  the  apostle  finishing  the  sentence  with 
which  he  commenced.  This  is  very  characteristic  of  Paul's 
manner,  and  as  is  peculiarly  obvious  in  his  two  epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians.  His  teeming  mind  protruded  its  rich 
thoughts  and  glowing  sentiments  so  rapidly,  that  his  course  was 
often  impeded,  and  the  original  object  for  a  time  entirely  lost 
sight  of.  See  Ephesians  3:  1,  where  the  sentence,  with  which 
the  first  verse  begins,  is  interrupted,  and  is  not  resumed  until  v. 
14,  or,  perhaps,  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter. 

The  salutation  of  Paul  is  addressed  to  all  the  Christians  who 
were  at  Rome,  whom  he  calls  beloved  of  God,  and  called  to  be 
saints.  The  people  of  God  are  often,  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  distinguished  by  the  honourable  appellation, 
beloved  of  God,  Deut.  33:  12.  Col.  3:  12.  Called  to  he  saints, 
means  chosen  or  made  saints;  as  in  v.  1,  called  to  be  an 
cqjostle,  means  chosen  or  appointed  an  apostle,  see  1  Cor.  1 :  2. 
The  fact  that  they  were  saints,  was  to  be  attritjuted  to  the 
gracious  choice  or  call  of  God.  The  word  translated  saints 
properly  means  separated,  and  is  applied  in  a  multitude  of 
cases  in  the  Old  Testament,  both  to  persons  and  things  conse- 
crated to  God.  In  this  sense,  all  the  Hebrews  were  a  holy  peo- 
ple. But  in  the  New  Testament,  when  used  in  reference  to 
persons,  it  expresses  their  moral  relation  to  God,  in  the  great 
inajority  of  cases.  This  is  its  meaning  here.  The  Roman 
Christians  were  called  to  be  not  merely  a  people  consecrated 
externally  to  God,  as  were  the  Jews,  but  to  be  morally  holy, 
see  on  ch.  11:  16.  Grace  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  common  form 
of  salutation.  Grace  is  the  divine  favour;  oxidi  peace  is  the  con- 
sequence of  it,  and  includes,  as  does  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
word,  all  blessings.  Compare  the  phrases  "  way  of  peace," 
''  God  of  peace,"  "  gospel  of  peace,"  and  the  like.  Hence  it 
is  used  constantly  in  salutations,  "  Peace  be  with  you,"  i.  e. 
may  all  good  rest  upon  you.  The  Greek  term  has  this  extent 
of  meaning  from  being  used  with  the  same  latitude  as  the  He- 
brew word,  which  signifies,  as  an  adjective,  complete  {integer), 
and  as  a  substantive,  completeness  {integritas),  well-being; 
and,  therefore,  includes  all  that  is  necessary  to  make  one  what 


32  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

he  would  wish  to  be.  When  the  favour  of  God  is  secured,  all 
other  blessings  follow  in  its  train.* 

These  blessings  are  sought  from  God  the  Father  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Christ  is  equally  with  the  Father  the  source 
of  these  blessings,  and,  therefore,  the  object  of  prayer;  which, 
under  such  circumstances,  and  for  such  blessings,  is  one  of  the 
highest  acts  of  worship.  God  is  called  our  Father,  as  he  from 
whom  all  good  ultimately  comes;  and  Jesus  Christ  is  called  Lord, 
as  our  Ruler,  under  whose  care  and  protection  we  are  placed, 
and  through  whose  ministration  all  good  is  actually  bestowed. 

(8)  First,  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus  Christ  for  you 
all,  &c.  From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  17th,  we  have  the 
general  introduction  to  the  epistle.  It  is  distinguished  by  the 
usual  characteristics  of  the  introductory  portions  of  the  apostle's 
letters.  1.  It  is  commendatory.  This  is  the  case  in  all  his 
epistles,  more  or  less,  except  that  to  the  Galatians.  However 
severe  his  reproofs,  he  never  fails  to  begin  in  a  conciliatory 
manner.  Compare  also  the  introduction  to  chapters  9th  and  10th. 
2.  It  is  affectionate.  3.  It  is  pious,  i.  e.  full  of  gi-ateful  acknow- 
ledgements to  God  as  the  author  of  all  the  good  he  had  to  com- 
mend in  them,  or  hope  for  them.  4.  It  is  skilful;  introducing, 
in  the  most  natural  and  appropriate  manner,  the  topics  of  discus- 
sion. First  indeed.  There  is  nothing  to  answer  in  what  fol- 
lows to  the  word  indeed,  and  it  is,  therefore,  in  our  version, 
omitted.  Compare,  on  this  clause,  1  Cor.  11:  18.  2  Cor.  12:  12, 
and  other  instances  of  the  same  kind,  in  which  the  apostle  fails 
to  carry  out  regularly  the  construction  with  which  he  com- 
mences. Before  introducing  any  other  topic,  the  apostle  ex- 
presses his  gratitude  to  God  on  their  account.  My  God  is  the 
endearing  form  of  expression  which  he  uses,  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  his  reconciliation.  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people,"  Jer.  30:  22,  contains  all  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace.  My  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  as 
these  words  are  often  explained,  thus  expressing  the  idea  that 
God  is  our  God,  or  is  reconciled  to  us  through  Jesus  Christ 
The  latter  clause  may,  however,  be  connected  with  the  words 
/  give  thanks.     This  is  the  more  natural  construction,  and  is 

*  Nihil  prius  optamlum,  quam  ut  Doiim  proj)itiiiiii  habcanuis:  quod  dcsignatur 
per  Gratiam.  Deindo,  ut  ab  co  prosperitas  et  succcssus  omuiiuu  rerum  fluat,  qui 
significatur  Pacis  vocubulo. — Calvijv. 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  33 

recommended  by  a  comparison  with  such  passages  as  Eph,  5:  20, 
"  Giving  thanks  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  Heb. 
13:  15.  John  14:  13.  These  passages  show  that  we  must  re- 
cognize the  mediation  of  Christ  in  our  offerings  to  God. 

That  your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout  the  world.  This 
is  the  ground  of  the  apostle's  thanksgiving;  and  of  course 
assumes,  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  something  for  which  we 
ought  to  be  thankful.  The  cause  of  the  faith  of  the  Romans, 
l)eing  so  generally  spoken  of,  may  have  been  either  that  it  was 
remarkably  strong  and  decided,  or  that  it  was  considered  of 
special  importance,  that  at  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  the 
gospel  had  been  embraced. 

(9)  For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  with  m,y  spirit, 
in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  &c.  That  Paul  was  really  thankful 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Romans,  he  confirms  by  the  fact  that 
he  was  constantly  mindful  of  them  in  his  prayers;  and  that  he 
did  thus  remember  them,  he  calls  God  to  witness.  This  appeal 
to  God  as  a  witness  of  the  truth  of  our  declarations,  approaches 
very  nearly  to  the  nature  of  an  oath,  wanting  only  the  impre- 
cation of  divine  displeasure  in  the  case  of  falsehood.  It  is,  with 
Paul,  not  unfrequent,  2  Cor.  1:  23.  Gal.  1:  20,  Phil.  1:  8,  &c. 
&c.  The  word  rendered  I  serve,  means,  properly,  I  tv  or  ship, 
or  perform  religious  service,  and  is  always  elsewhere  used  in 
this  sense  in  the  New  Testament.  This  meaning  may  be  here 
retained,  "  whom  I  worship  in  my  spirit,"  i.  e.  not  merely 
externally,  but  cordially ;  and  the  clause  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son 
may  mean  either,  agreeably  to  the  gospel,  or  in  preaching  the 
gospel.  If  the  latter,  the  idea  may  be,  that  preaching  the 
gospel  is  itself  a  religious  service;  or  that  his  devotion  to  this 
duty  was  evidence  that  he  was  a  sincere  worshipper.*  The 
former  interpretation  is  the  simpler  of  the  two — according  to 
the  gospel.  The  preposition  rendered  i7i,  often  expresses  the 
rule  according  to  which  any  thing  is  done — "  according  to  what 
judgment  ye  judge,  &c."  Matt.  7:  2. 

(10)  Making  request  if  by  any  tneans  now  at  length  I 
might  have  a  jwosperous  journey  by  the  will  of  God  to  come 

*  So  Calvik,  Deindc  a  signo  probat,  quomodo  Dcum  non  ficte  colat,  nempe 
ministerio  suo.  Erat  enim  amplissimum  illud  specimen,  esse  hominem  Dei 
gloriae  deditum,  &,c. 

5 


34  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

unto  yon.  Not  merely  the  fact  that  he  prayed,  Init  the  subject 
of  his  prayers,  evinced  his  interest  in  the  Roman  Christians.  If 
by  any  means  now  at  length  expresses  the  strength  of  the 
apostle's  desire  to  see  them,  and  implies  that  it  had  been,  as  he 
afterwards  assures  them  was  the  case,  long  cherished,  /  may 
have  a  prosperous  journey ;  this  is  all  expressed  by  one  word 
in  the  Greek,  which  means,  /  may  be  prospered,  see  2  Cor. 
16:  2.  3  John  v.  2.  The  idea  therefore  is,  'that  God  would 
order  things  fiivourably  to  his  visiting  them.'  By  the  luill  of 
God,  not  merely  by  the  divine  favour,  but  under  the  divine 
guidance. 

(11)  For  I  long  to  see  yon,  that  I  may  impart  nnto  you 
some  spiritual  gift,  &c.  The  desire  of  the  apostle  to  visit 
Rome,  arose  from  no  idle  curiosity,  nor  from  a  mere  desire  of 
intercourse  with  his  fellow-christians,  but  from  a  wish  to  be 
useful.  Spiritual  gifts  are  gifts  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  author,  and  include,  not  only  those  miraculous  endowments, 
of  which  such  frequent  mention  is  made  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  and  elsewhere,  but  also  the  ordinary  gifts  of  teach- 
ing, exhortation  and  prophesying,  enumerated  in  1  Cor.  12. 
Gifts  of  the  former  class  were  communicated  by  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  apostles.  Acts  8:  17.  19:  G,  and  therefore 
abounded  in  churches  founded  by  the  apostles,  1  Cor.  1 :  7. 
Gal.  3:  5.  As  the  church  at  Rome  was  not  of  this  number,  it 
has  been  supposed  that  Paul's  meaning  in  tliis  passage  is,  that 
he  was  desirous  of  communicating  to  them  some  of  the  extraor- 
dinary gifts,  by  which  the  gospel,  in  other  ])laces,  was  attended 
and  confirmed.  To  this  view  is  suited  the  object  which  he  had 
in  his  mind,  viz.  "  that  they  might  be  established."  Although 
this  idea  is  not  to  be  excluded,  a  comparison  with  vs.  12,  13, 
shows  that  the  apostle's  meaning  is  more  general. 

(12)  That  is,  that  I  may  be  comforted  together  with  you, 
&c.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  pre- 
ceding; it  does  not  imply  that  the  apostle  was  to  receive  from 
them  the  same  gifts  that  he  wished  to  im])art  to  them,  but  that 
he  expected  to  be  benefited  by  their  imjjrovement.  It  is  de- 
signed, therefore,  with  singular  modesty,  to  insinuate,  that  he 
did  not  imagine  himself  above  being  improved  by  the  Roman 
Christians,  or  that  the  benefit  would  be  all  on  one  side.  He 
hoped  to  derive  good  from  those  to  whom  he  imparted  good. 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  35 

The  word  rendered  to  covifort,  means  to  invite,  to  exhort,  to 
instruct,  to  console,  &c.  Which  of  these  senses  is  to  he  pre- 
ferred here,  is  not  easy  to  decide.  Most  probably  the  apostle 
intended  to  use  the  word  in  a  wide  sense,  as  expressina;  the  idea 
that  he  might  be  excited,  encouraged  and  comforted  by  his 
intercourse  with  his  Christian  brethren.* 

(13)  Now  I  luould  not  have  you  ignorant  brethren,  that 
oftentimes  I pui^posed  to  come  unto  you,  &c.  In  ch.  15:  22, 
23,  he  mentions  the  same  fact,  and  says  this  purpose  had  been 
long  entertained;  its  execution  was  prevented  by  providential 
circumstances,  or  direct  intimations  of  the  divine  will.  In  1 
Thess.  2:  18,  he  tells  the  Thessalonians  that  Satan  had  hindered 
his  coming  to  them.  In  Acts  16:  6,  7,  it  is  said  that  he  "was 
forbidden  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia."  And 
in  Rom.  15:  21,  22,  he  says  his  pressing  calls  to  preach  the 
gospel  where  it  had  not  before  been  heard,  had  much  hindered 
his  going  to  Rome.  His  object  in  desiring  to  visit  them  was,  that 
he  tnight  have  some  fruit  among  them,  as  among  other  Gen- 
tiles. To  have  fruit,  commonly  means  to  derive  advantage 
from;  ch.  6 :  21, 22,  "what  fruit  had  ye,"  i.  e.  what  advantage  had 
ye.  Many  give  the  words  this  sense  here,  and  understand  the 
apostle  as  referring  to  personal  benefits  of  some  kind,  which  he 
wished  to  derive  from  preaching  to  them.  But  it  is  much 
more  natural  to  understand  him  as  referring  to  that  fruit,  which, 
as  Calvin  remarks,  the  apostles  were  sent  to  gather.  John  15: 
16,  "I  have  chosen  you  that  ye  might  go  and  bring  forth  fruit," 
i.  e.  produce  great  results,  and  that  your  fruit  may  remain. 

(14)  I  ain  debtor  both  to  the  Greeks  and  the  Barbarians, 
both  the  ivise  and  the  unwise.  That  is,  '  I  am  officially  bound 
to  preach  to  all  classes  of  men.'  Those  whom  he  calls  in  the 
first  clause  Greeks  and  Barbarians,  he  calls  in  the  second,  wise 
and  unwise.  As  the  Greeks  called  all  foreigners  barbarians, 
and  as  most  other  nations  were  uncivilized,  the  term  barbarian 
was  often  used  as  equivalent  with  rude,  uncultivated.  Pro- 
perly, however,  it  means  a  foreigner,  one  of  another  lan- 
guage, especially  in  reference  to  the  Greeks:  for  the  Romans 
were  called,  and  called  themselves  barbarians,  until  the  Greek 

•   Vide  in  quantam  modoratioiiein  subniittat  pium  prctus,  quod  noii  recusat  a 
rudibus  tiruncuiis  coiifirinationein  petere. — Calvin. 


36  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

language  and  literature  prevailed  among  them.  Paul  uses  it  in 
its  original  sense  in  1  Cor.  14:  11,  "I  shall  he  unto  him  that 
speaketh,  a  barbarian,  and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a  barbarian 
unto  me,"  i.  e,  we  shall  be  as  foreigners  to  each  other,  if  one 
uses  a  tongue  unknown  to  the  other.  It  is  used,  as  here,  for 
those  destitute  of  Roman  or  Jewish  culture.  Acts  2S:  2,  4^ 
and  Col.  3:  11.  It  is  said  to  have  been  first  employed  as  a 
term  of  reproach  by  the  Greeks  in  reference  to  the  Persians 
after  their  wars  with  that  people.  See  Passow's  Greek  Lexicon 
on  this  word. 

(15)  So,  as  m/iich  as  in  me  is,  I  am  ready  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  yo7i  that  are  at  Rome  also.  As  the  apostle's  obli- 
gation extended  to  all  classes,  he  was  prepared  to  preach  even 
at  Rome,  where  he  might  expect  the  greatest  opposition  and 
contempt.  Our  translation  of  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  is 
the  same  as  that  given  by  Grotius.*  It  may,  however,  more 
consistently  with  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  be  rendered 
so,  my  desire  is,  or,  so,  I  am  ready:  llic  words  translated 
as  much  as  in  me  is,  being  a  mere  paraplirase  for  the  posses- 
sive pronoun,  or  for  the  genitive  case  of  the  personal  pronoun. 

(16)  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  for  it 
is  the  2J0iver  of  God  imto  salvation,  to  every  one  that  he- 
lieveth;  to  the  Jeiv  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.  We  have 
here  the  theme  of  the  whole  epistle.  The  gospel  ]iroposcs  sal- 
vation on  the  condition  of  faith;  and  it  is  universally  applicable 
to  the  Greek  as  well  as  the  Jew.  These  ideas  are  presented 
more  fully  in  the  two  following  verses.  Thus  naturally  does 
the  apostle  introduce  the  great  topics  of  discussion,  the  method 
of  salvation,  and  the  persons  to  whom  it  may  be  proj)oscd.  The 
connexion  between  this  and  the  preceding  verse  is  obvious. 
The  reason  why  he  was  ready  to  preach  the  gospel,  even  in  the 
proud  capital  of  the  world,  was  that  it  is  divinely  efficacious  in 
securing  the  salvation  of  men.  It  docs  what  no  other  system 
ever  did  or  can  accomplish.  The  words  rendered  the  ])0wcr  of 
God  may  be  taken  for  divinely  efficacious;  better,  however,  as 
expressing  the  idea  of  that  through  \ohicli  the  power  of  God 
is  manifested.  Acts  8:  10.    1  Cor.  1:  IS,  24.t     'The  gospel 

*  Quod  mcao  est  potcsfatis  id  paratum  est.     Thus  too  Beza,  Quicquid  in  me 
situm  est,  promptum  est  ad  vobis  quoque  qui  Roma;  estis  evangclizandum. 
■j-  Organon  Dei  verc  potens  ct  eflicax  ad  senandum. — Bf.za. 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  37 

is  an  instrument,  in  the  liands  of  God,  truly  powerful  in  saving 
men.'  To  every  one  that  believeth.  Emphasis  must  be  laid 
upon  both  members  of  this  clause.  The  gospel  is  thus  effica- 
cious to  every  one,  without  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile; and  to  every  one  that  believeth,  not  who  is  circumcised, 
or  wlio  obeys  the  law,  or  who  does  this  or  that,  or  any  other 
thine;,  but  who  believes,  i.  e.  who  receives  and  confides  in  Jesus 
Christ  in  all  the  characters,  and  for  all  the  purposes  in  which 
he  is  presented  in  the  gospel.  It  will  be  very  clearly  seen  in 
the  progress  of  the  epistle,  that  Paul  attributes  no  special  effi- 
cacy to  faith  itself,  considered  as  an  exercise  of  the  mind.  As 
such,  it  is  no  more  worthy  of  being  the  condition  of  salvation, 
than  love,  or  repentance,  or  resignation,  or  any  other  act  of 
obedience  to  the  law  of  God.  It  is  as  the  organ  of  reception; 
as  the  acquiescence  of  the  soul  in  the  method  of  salvation  pro- 
posed in  the  gospel,  that  it  is  the  turning  point  in  the  destiny 
of  every  human  being.  The  grand  idea  of  this  epistle,  and  of 
the  whole  bible  (as  far  as  this  subject  is  concerned),  is  that  the 
ground  of  our  justification,  and  the  source  of  our  sanctification, 
are  not  in  ourselves;  that  neither  human  merit  nor  human  pow- 
er can  have  any  of  the  glory  of  our  salvation.  To  the  merit  of 
Christ  we  owe  our  acceptance  with  God,  and  to  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  our  preparation  for  his  presence.  To  the  Jew 
first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.  It  would  be  in  direct  contradic- 
tion to  one  of  the  prominent  ol)jects  of  the  apostle  in  writing 
this  epistle,  as  well  as  to  his  explicit  declarations,  to  make  this 
clause  teach  that  the  gospel  w^as  specially  designed  or  adapted 
for  the  Jews,  see  ch.  3:  9,  22,  29.  10:  12,  &c.  The  meaning 
obviously  is, '  for  the  Jew  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  for 
the  Greek.'  The  gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  all  nations,  be- 
gin7iing  at  Jerusalem,  compare  Acts  3:  26  and  13:  26.  Paul 
often  says  '  Jews  and  Greeks'  for  '  Jews  and  Gentiles,'  ch.  2 :  9. 
3:  9,  &c.,  because,  after  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  the  Greeks 
were  the  Gentiles  with  whom  the  Jews  were  most  familiar. 

(17)  For  therein  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  from 
faith  to  faith,  &c.  The  reason  why  the  gospel  is  so  efficacious 
in  the  salvation  of  men,  i.  e.  in  securing  the  pardon  of  their 
sins,  and  the  moral  renovation  of  their  hearts  and  lives,  is  not 
that  it  reveals  a  perfect  moral  system,  or  that  it  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punishment,  or  that  it 


38  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

discloses  new  views  of  the  divine  character.  All  this  is  true 
and  efficacious;  but  the  power  of  the  gospel  lies  in  the  fact  that 
it  teaches  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  or,  in  other  words, 
it  reveals  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith.  This  expression 
is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  epistle,  and  is  variously 
explained. 

The  word  rendered  righteousyiess,  has,  in  the  scriptures,  a 
very  great  extent  and  variety  of  meaning.  It  signifies  not 
merely  Justice  in  its  strict  sense,  but  general  rectitude,  including 
all  moral  excellence.  It  is  used,  therefore,  especially  in  the  Old 
Testament,  for  almost  every  specific  virtue,  as  tinith,  benevo- 
lence, mercy,  &c.  The  examples  may  be  seen  in  the  Lexicons. 
Its  common  and  proper  meaning  is,  that  which  makes  a  man 
just,  i.  e.  which  fulfils  and  satisfies  all  the  claims  of  justice  or  law. 
Hence,  a  just  vian  is  one  who  can  stand  in  judgment  See  the 
constant  opposition  between  \\\e  just  and  the  unjust;  between 
those  who  can,  and  those  who  cannot  answer  the  demands  of  law. 
The  word,  therefore,  not  unfrequently  means  the  state  of  one 
who  is  thus  just,  or  who  has  done  all  that  is  required  of  him. 
This  Tholuck  gives  as  its  original  meaning.  See  Is.  5:  23, 
"who  take  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  from  him;"  that 
is,  not  who  take  away  his  excellence,  but  its  consequences;  who 
deprive  him  of  the  benefits  of  his  righteousness,  or  exclude  him 
from  the  state  or  condition  of  those  who  are  regarded  as  right- 
eous. This  is  by  many  considered  as  the  dominant  meaning  of 
the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  'The  state  of  freedom  from 
punishment,  and  enjoyment  of  the  favour  of  God,  i.  e.  the  con- 
dition of  those  who  arc  considered  righteous  in  his  sight'  See 
such  passages  as  Is.  45:  8.  51:  5,  and  56:  1,  where  righteous- 
ness is  connected  with  salvation,  as  a  nearl}'  synonymous  term. 
Ps.  24:  5,  "he  shall  receive  the  blessing  from  the  Lord,  and 
righteousness  from  the  God  of  his  salvation;"  here  righteous- 
ness is  not  excellence,  but  the  blessings  consequent  on  it 
Hence, '  to  receive  righteousness'  is  to  be  justified.  And  so  this 
verse  may  be  rendered  '  he  shall  be  justified  by  the  God  of  his 
salvation.'  Prov.  21:21,"  he  that  foUoweth  after  righteousness 
and  mercy,  findeth  life,  righteousness  and  honour,"  where  the 
word  is  obviously  used  in  different  senses  in  the  two  members 
of  the  verse.  In  this  sense  of  the  word,  it  is  nearly  equivalent 
with  justification,  not  as  the  act  of  God,  but  viewed  in  refer- 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  39 

ence  to  the  sinner.  See  2  Cor.  3:  9,  where  "the  mniistration 
of  condemnation"  is  opposed  to  "  the  ministration  of  righteous- 
ness," i.  e.  justification;  Rom.  9:  31,  where  "  the  law  of  right- 
eousness" may  mean  'the  rule  of  justification;'  Gal.  2:  21,  "if 
righteousness  (justification)  co7ne  hy  the  law,  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain;"  3:  21,  "if  there  had  heen  a  law  which  could  have 
given  life,  verily  righteousness  (justification)  should  have  been 
by  the  law;"  5:  5.  Rom.  5.  21.  Finally,  when  used  in  refer- 
ence to  God,  it  may  mean  his  justification,  that  is,  his  way 
of  justifying  sinners.  Thus  salvation  of  God  is  used,  Acts 
28:  28,  for  '  his  method  of  salvation.' 

One  of  the  greatest  difficulties  in  understanding  the  epistles 
of  Paul,  especially  those  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  arises 
from  the  fulness  and  variety  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  here 
rendered  righteousness.  The  difficulty  is  greatly  enhanced  to 
the  reader  of  the  English  version,  as  the  English  term  answers 
to  a  small  portion  only  of  the  ideas  which  may  be  expressed 
by  the  Greek  word.  Hence,  an  interpretation  which  the  Greek 
readily  admits,  the  English  will  not  bear.  It  is,  therefore,  often 
necessary  to  vary  the  translation  of  this  word  in  obedience  to 
the  requirements  of  the  context.  With  regard  to  the  important 
phrase  righteousiiess  of  God,  in  this  verse,  there  are  three 
interpretations  which  demand  attention.  I.  According  to  the 
first,  it  is  to  be  understood  of  some  divine  attribute,  the  recti- 
tude or  mercy  of  God,  see  ch.  3:  5,  25.  But  this  interpretation 
does  not,  in  the  first  place,  suit  the  context.  It  is  not  because 
the  gospel  contains  the  declaration  of  God's  rectitude,  or  even 
of  his  mercy,  that  it  is  so  efficacious.  2.  The  latter  sense,  that 
of  inercy,  the  word  rarely,  if  ever  has,  in  such  a  connexion  in 
the  New  Testament.  3.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent 
with  the  force  of  the  words  by  faith.  It  is  the  righteousness 
of  God  by  faith,  that  is  revealed  in  the  gospel.  The  phrases 
righteousness  of,  or  by  faith,  and  of  the  law,  are  so  opposed  to 
each  other  as  to  be  mutually  explanatory.  It  is  the  former 
which  is  the  great  theme  of  the  gospel,  and  which  cannot  pos- 
sibly mean  the  '  mercy  which  is  by  faith.'  4.  This  interpreta- 
tion cannot  be  applied  to  other  passages  where  the  phrase 
occurs;  as  ch.  3:21,  where  this  righteousness  of  God  is  de- 
clared not  to  be  legal;  ch.  10:  3,  where  the  righteousness  of  the 


40  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

Jews,  '  as  tlieir  own,'  is  opposed  to  the  righteousness  of  God, 
see  Phil.  3:  9. 

II.  According  to  the  second  view,  the  phrase  means  '  that 
righteousness,  of  which  God  is  the  author,  and  which  is  accept- 
able to  him;'  as  "  ways  of  God  "  are  ways  which  he  approves. 
In  favour  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be  urged,  1.  Tliat  it  gives 
the  word  righteousness  its  most  common  and  appropriate  mean- 
ing; and  assigns  to  the  genitive  of  God  one  of  its  most  familiar 
acceptations.  2.  That  it  is  sustained  by  a  reference  to  the  fre- 
quently recurring  expression,  '  righteous  before  God,'  or  '  in 
his  sight,'  i.  e.  in  his  estimation,  which  shows  how  familiar  it 
was  to  the  sacred  writers  to  qualify  the  righteousness  Avhich 
was  to  be  desired,  by  designating  it  as  such  in  the  estimation 
of  God.  3.  This  interpretation  will  suit  most  of  the  passages  in 
which  the  phrase  occurs,  ch.  3:  21.  10:  3.  Phil.  3:  9,  &c.  It 
suits  also  the  opposition  between  '  righteousness  of,  or  by  faith,' 
and  '  righteousness  of  the  law,  or  by  tlie  works  of  the  law.' 
These  expressions  are  used  in  such  connexion  with  the  phrase 
under  consideration,  as  to  show  that  the  word  righteousness 
must  mean  the  same  thing  in  both  cases.  '  Righteousness  by 
faith'  is  '  that  excellence  which  is  obtained  by  faith;'  and  '  right- 
eousness of  the  law'  is  that  which  is  obtained  by  obedience  to 
the  law.  4.  It  suits  the  contrast,  Rom.  10:  3,  between  *  our  own 
righteousness'  and  '  tlie  righteousness  of  God.'  It  is  especially 
recommended  by  a  comparison  with  Phil.  3:  9.  "Not  having 
my  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  wiiich  is  of  God 
l)y  faith,"  Here  it  is  evident  "  the  rigliteousness  which  is  of 
God,"  is  that  meritorious  excellence  which  he  gives,  as  distin- 
guished from  that  which  we  gain  by  our  own  works.  This 
serves  to  explain  what  Paul  meant  by  the  more  concise  phrase, 
"  righteousness  of  God."  This  interpretation,  which,  among 
the  older  Calvinistic  writers,*  is  altogether  the  most  common, 

*  Justitiam  Dei  acripio,  qua;  ajjiul  Dei  tribunal  approbctur;  qucmaclmotlum 
contra  Iloniinuin  justitiam  vocare  solent,  qua;  hominum  oj)ini()nP  habctur  et  ccn- 
setur  justilia,  licet  fuinus  timtum  sit. — Calvin.  Beza's  explanation  is  much  the 
same.  So,  too,  among  the  moderns,  even  the  philoso])liical  Neanpeu,  "  Die 
^ixaiotfuvr)  tou  Sjou  bezcichnet  hicr,  (he  is  speakinc;  of  Mom.  10:  2)  cin  solches 
Oerechtseyn,  welches  vor  Gott  Geltung  hat  und  von  ihm  herkommt  im  Gegensatz 
gegciieui  seiches,  das  man  sich  durch  cigcnc  Kriiftc  und  Werke  erwcrbcn  meint  und 


ROMANS  1:  1_17.  41 

is  perfectly  suited  to  the  context.  Tlie  power  of  the  gospel  is 
attributed  to  the  fact,  that  a  justifying  righteousness  is  therein 
revealed,  that  is,  a  merit  which  satisfies  all  the  demands  of  the 
law,  and  which  God  offers,  as  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  depen- 
dence, in  preference  to  any  righteousness  or  merit  of  his  own. 

III.  According  to  the  third  interpretation,  "righteousness  of 
God"  means  '  God's  method  of  justification.'     This  is  consist- 
ent, as  shown  above,  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  ori- 
ginal.    It  may  signify  justification,  or  a  state  of  favour  with 
God,  and  then. the  method  of  obtaining  it.     This  is,  among  mo-, 
dern  writers,  the  interpretation  which  is  most  generally  re- 
ceived, although  the   second  seems  to   be  again  coming  into 
vogue.     This  view  has  the  great  advantage  of  being  applicable 
to  all  the  places  in  which  the  phrase  occurs  in  this  epistle,  ex- 
cept ch.  3:  5,  and  (perhaps)  3:  25.     It  suits  also  the  opposition 
between  the  expressions  '  the  method  of  justification  by  faith,' 
and  '  the  method  of  justification  by  works.'     But  it  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  liable  to   several  objections.      It  gives  the  word 
righteousness  a  figurative  and  comparatively  unusual  meaning. 
It  does  not  so  well  suit  the  opposition  between  '  our  own  right- 
eousness,' and  'the  righteousness  of  God;'  as  the  former  of 
these  phrases  cannot  well  mean  '  our  own  method  of  justifica- 
tion.'    It  is  opposed  also  to  the  explanation  of  the  apostle,  fur- 
nished by  the  expression,  '  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God 
by  faith,'  Phil.  3:  9,  which  cannot,  in  that  passage,  mean  '  God's 
method  of  justification.'     On  the  whole,  therefore,  the  old  in- 
terpretation is  the  best,  better  suited  to  the  usage  of  the  words, 
better  adapted  to  the  context,  and  to  the  train  and  object  of  the 
apostle's  argument,  which  all  tends  to  demonstrate  that  the 
ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  is  something  out  of  our- 
selves :  a  righteousness  which  is  of  God,  and  not  our  own. 
The  words  from  faith  to  faith  are  not  to  be  connected  with 
the  word  revealed,  as  though  the  meaning  were,  '  revealed 

das,  wenn  auch  Menschen  durch  den  Schein  sich  tauschen  lassen,  vor  dem  Blick 
des  heiligen,  all  wissenden  Gottes  nicht  bestehen  kann."  "  Aixaio(Ti;v>]  tou  Ssou 
designates  here  such  a  righteousness  as  is  of  avail  before  God,  and  which  comes 
from  him,  in  opposition  to  that  which  men  imagine  they  can  gain  by  their  own 
power  and  works,  and  which,  even  if  they  allow  themselves  to  be  cheated  by  the 
semblance,  cannot  stand  before  the  eye  of  the  all-holy  and  all-seeing  God." — Ge- 
schichie  der  Pfanzung  der  Kirclie,  &c.,  vol.  2,  p.  537. 

6 


48  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

from  faith  to  faith,'  but  with  the  word  righteousness.  It  is 
"  the  righteousness  of  God,  tuhich  is  by  faith  to  faith,'''  that 
is  disclosed  by  the  gospel.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of 
these  words  is  that  which  makes  the  repetition  merely  inten- 
sive— '  from  faith  to  faith,'  entirely  of  faith,  in  which  works 
have  no  part.  See  2  Cor.  2:  16,  "  death  to  death,"  means  very 
deadly,  "  life  unto  life"  eminently  salutary.  That  righteousness, 
then,  which  is  acceptable  before  God,  is  that  of  which  he  is  the 
author,  and  which  is  received  by  faith  alone. 

As  it  is  ivritten.  The  just  shall  live  by  faith.  The  words, 
as  it  is  written,  are  the  usual  formula  of  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament.  In  what  relation  the  passage  cited  may  stand  to 
the  topic  in  hand,  whether  as  a  prediction,  or  an  inculcation  of 
the  same  or  some  analogous  truth,  or  of  something  which  may 
serve  as  an  illustration,  depends  entirely  on  the  context.  In 
the  present  case,  Paul  wishes  to  show  the  importance  of  faith, 
by  a  reference  to  a  passage  in  Habakkuk  2:  4,  in  which  the 
prophet  declares  that  the  safety  of  the  people  depended  upon 
their  believing.  Those  who  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  threaten- 
ings  and  promises  of  God  should  perish,  but  those  who  be- 
lieved should  live.  The  passage,  therefore,  is  directly  in  point, 
and  shows  that,  as  well  in  reference  to  the  external  theocracy 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  to  the  spiritual  theocracy  or  kingdom 
of  Christ,  under  the  New  Testament,  the  favour  of  God  was  to 
be  secured  by  faith. 

Agreeably  to  the  position  of  the  words  in  the  original,  these 
words  may  be  pointed  either  thus, '  the  just  by  faith,  shall  live,' 
or  thus,  '  the  just,  by  faith  shall  live.'  The  former  is  more  con- 
sistent with  the  immediate  object  of  the  apostle,  who  is  spealfc- 
ing  of  di  justness  by  faith.  It  is  also  the  connexion  and  sense 
of  the  words  in  the  Old  Testament.  Shall  live,  shall  enjoy  the 
favour  of  God,  whose  favour  is  life,  and  whose  loving-kindness 
is  better  than  life,  see  Rom.  5:  17.  8:  13.  10:  3,  and  the  nume- 
rous passages  in  which  the  word  life  expresses  all  the  benefits 
of  the  redemption  of  Christ. 

Doctrines. 
1.  The  apostolic  office,  except  as  to  what  was  peculiar  and 
extraordinary,  being  essentially  the  same  with  the  ministerial 
office  in  general,  Paul  teaches,  1.  That  ministers  are  the  ser- 


ROMANS  1:  1—17.  43 

vants  of  Christ,  deriving  their  authority  from  him,  and  not 
from  the  people;  2.  That  their  calling  is  to  preach  the  gospel, 
to  which  all  other  avocations  must  be  made  subordinate;  3.  That 
the  object  of  their  appointment  is  to  bring  men  to  the  obedi- 
ence of  faith;  4.  That  their  field  is  all  nations;  5.  That  the  de- 
sign of  all  is  to  honour  Christ;  it  is  for  his  name,  vs.  1 — 5. 

2.  The  gospel  is  contained,  in  its  rudiments,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,    It  is  the  soul  of  the  old  dispensation,  v.  2. 

3.  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  the  gospel.  In  stating 
the  substance  of  the  gospel,  Paul  says,  '  it  concerns  Jesus 
Christ,'  V.  3. 

4.  Christ  is  at  once  God  and  man;  the  son  of  David  and 
the  Son  of  God,  vs.  3,  4, 

5.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  in  reference  to  his  divine 
nature,  and  on  account  of  the  relation  in  which,  as  God,  he 
stands  to  the  Father.  The  name,  therefore,  is  expressive  of  his 
divine  character,  vs.  3,  4. 

6.  He  is  the  proper  object  of  prayer,  and  the  source  of  spi- 
ritual blessings,  v.  7. 

7.  He  is  the  mediator,  through  whom  our  prayers  and  thanks- 
giving must  be  presented  unto  God,  v.  8. 

8.  God  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  good;  is  to  be  worship- 
ped in  spirit,  and  agreeably  to  the  gospel;  and  his  providence 
is  to  be  recognized  in  reference  to  the  most  ordinary  affairs  of 
life,  vs.  8—10. 

9.  Ministers  are  not  a  class  of  men  exalted  above  the  people, 
and  independent  of  them  for  spiritual  benefits,  but  are  bound  to 
seek,  as  well  as  to  impart  good,  in  all  their  intercourse  with 
those  to  whom  they  are  sent,  vs.  11,  12. 

10.  Ministers  are  bound  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  men,  rich 
as  well  as  poor,  wise  as  well  as  unwise;  for  it  is  equally  adapted 
to  the  wants  of  all,  vs.  14,  15. 

11.  The  salvation  of  men,  including  the  pardon  of  their  sins, 
and  the  moral  renovation  of  their  hearts,  can  be  effected  by  the 
gospel  alone.  The  wisdom  of  men,  during  four  thousand 
years  previous  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  failed  to  discover  any 
adequate  means  for  the  attainment  of  either  of  these  objects; 
and  those  who,  since  the  advent,  have  neglected  the  gospel, 
have  been  equally  unsuccessful,  v.  16,  &c. 

12.  The  power  of  the  gospel  lies  not  in  its  pure  theism,  or 


44  ROMANS  1:  1—17. 

perfect  moral  code,  but  in  the  cross,  in  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  in  a  crucified  Redeemer,  v.  17,  &:c. 

Remarks. 

1.  Ministers  should  remember  that  they  are  "separated  unto 
the  gospel,"  and  that  any  occupation  which,  by  its  demands 
upon  their  attention,  or  from  its  influence  on  their  character  or 
feelings,  interferes  with  their  devotion  to  this  object,  is  for  them 
wrong,  V.  1. 

2.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  the  great  subject  of  the  gospel,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  we  cannot  have  right  views  of  the  one,  without  having 
correct  opinions  respecting  the  other.  What  think  ye  of  Christ? 
cannot  be  a  minor  question.  To  be  Christians,  we  must  recog- 
nize him  as  the  Messiah,  or  Son  of  David;  and  as  divine,  or 
the  Son  of  God;  we  must  be  able  to  pray  to  him,  to  look  for 
blessings  from  him,  and  recognize  him  as  the  mediator  between 
God  and  man,  vs.  1 — 8. 

3.  Christians  should  remember  that  they  are  saints;  that  is, 
persons  separated  from  the  world  and  consecrated  to  God.  They 
therefore  cannot  serve  themselves  or  the  world,  without  a  dere- 
liction of  their  character.  They  are  saints,  because  called  and 
made  such  of  God.  To  all  such,  grace  and  peace  are  secured  by 
the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  the  promise  of  God,  v.  7. 

4.  In  presenting  truth,  every  thing  consistent  with  fidelity 
should  be  done  to  conciliate  the  confidence  and  kind  feelings  of 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed;  and  every  thing  avoided,  which 
tends  to  excite  prejudice  against  the  speaker  or  his  message. 
Who  more  faithful  than  Paul  ?  Yet  who  more  anxious  to  avoid 
offence  ?  Who  more  solicitous  to  present  the  truth,  not  in  its 
most  irritating  form,  but  in  the  manner  best  adapted  to  gain  for 
it  access  to  the  unruffled  minds  of  his  readers  ?  vs.  S — 14. 

5.  As  all  virtues,  according  to  the  Christian  system,  are 
graces  (gifts),  they  aflbrd  matter  for  thanksgiving,  but  never  for 
self-commendation,  v.  8. 

6.  The  intercourse  of  Christians  should  be  desired,  and  made 
to  result  in  edification,  by  their  mutual  faith,  v.  12. 

7.  He  who  rejects  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  rejects 
the  gospel.  His  whole  method  of  salvation,  and  system  of  rcli- 
•j-ion,  must  be  different  from  those  of  the  apostles,  v.  17. 

8.  Whether  we  be  wise  or  unwise,  moral  or  immoral,  in  the 


ROMANS  1:  18— 32.  45 

sight  of  men,  orthodox  or  heterodox  in  our  opinions;  unless  we 
are  believers,  unless  we  cordially  receive  '  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God,'  as  the  ground  of  acceptance,  we  have  no  part 
or  lot  in  the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  v.  17. 


CHAP.  1:  18—32. 
Jinalysis. 

The  apostle  having  stated  that  the  only  righteousness  availa- 
ble in  the  sight  of  God  is  that  which  is  obtained  by  faith, 
proceeds  to  prove  that  such  is  the  case.  This  proof  required 
that  he  should,  in  the  first  instance,  demonstrate  that  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  or  of  works,  was  insufficient 
for  the  justification  of  a  sinner.  This  he  does,  first  in  reference 
to  the  Gentiles,  ch.  1 :  18 — 32;  and  then  in  relation  to  the  Jews, 
ch.  2: — 3:  1 — 20.  The  residue  of  this  chapter  then  is  designed 
to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are  justly  exposed  to  condemnation. 
The  apostle  thus  argues:  God  is  just;  his  displeasure  against 
sin  (which  is  its  punishment)  is  clearly  revealed,  v.  18. 
This  principle  is  assumed  by  the  apostle,  as  the  foundation  of 
his  whole  argument.  If  this  be  granted,  it  follows  that  all,  who 
are  chargeable  with  either  impiety  or  immorality,  are  exposed 
to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  cannot  claim  his  favour  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  character  or  conduct.  That  the  Gentiles  are  justly 
chargeable  with  both  impiety  and  immorality,  he  thus  proves. 
They  have  ever  enjoyed  such  a  revelation  of  the  divine  cha- 
racter as  to  render  them  inexcusable,  vs.  19,  20.  Notwith- 
standing this  opportunity  of  knowing  God,  they  neither  wor- 
shipped nor  served  him,  but  gave  themselves  up  to  all  forms  of 
idolatry.  This  is  the  height  of  all  impiety,  vs.  21,  23.  In 
consequence  of  this  desertion  of  God,  he  gave  them  up  to  the 
evil  of  their  own  hearts,  so  that  they  sank  into  all  manner  of 
debasing  crimes.  The  evidences  of  this  corruption  of  morals 
were  so  painfully  obvious,  that  Paul  merely  appeals  to  the 
knowledge  which  his  readers  all  possessed  of  the  fact,  vs.  24 — 31. 
These  various  crimes  they  do  not  commit  ignorantly;  they  are 
aware  of  their  ill-desert;  and  yet  they  not  only  commit  them 
themselves,  but  encourage  others  in  the  same  course,  v.  32. 

The  inference  from  the  established  sinfulness  of  the  Gentile 
world,  Paul  does  not  draw,  until  he  has  substantiated  the  same 


46  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

charge  against  the  Jews.  He  then  says,  since  all  are  sinners 
before  God,  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law. 
ch.  3:  20. 

Commentary. 

(IS)  For  the  lorath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against 
all  ungodliness,  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  &c.  The  con- 
nexion of  this  verse  with  the  preceding,  and  consequently  the 
force  of  the  particle  for,  will  be  perceived,  if  it  is  remembered 
that  Paul  had  just  asserted,  that  those  only  who  were  just  by 
faith,  could  live;  in  other  words,  that  no  righteousness  but  that 
which  is  of  God  by  faith,  can  avail  to  the  justification  of  men. 
The  reason  is  assigned  in  this  verse;  God  is  just.  Men  must 
be  justified  by  faith,  for  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed,  &c.  The 
wrath  of  God  means  his  disapprobation  of  sin  and  his  determi- 
nation to  punish  it.  The  passion  which  is  called  anger  or 
wrath,  and  which  is  always  mixed  more  or  less  with  malignity 
in  the  human  breast,  is,  of  course,  infinitely  removed  from  what 
the  word  imports  when  used  in  reference  to  God.  Yet  as  anger 
in  men  leads  to  the  infliction  of  evil  on  its  object,  the  word  is, 
agreeably  to  a  principle  which  pervades  the  scriptures,  applied 
to  the  calm  and  undeviating  purpose  of  the  divine  mind,  which 
secures  the  connexion  between  sin  and  misery,  with  the  same 
general  uniformity  that  any  other  law  in  the  physical  or  moral 
government  of  God  operates.  This  wrath  is  revealed  from 
heaven.  These  words  are  variously  explained.  Some  very 
unnecessarily  take  the  present  is  revealed,  for  the  future  shall 
be  revealed,  i.  e.  in  the  last  day.  It  is  no  less  obvious  that  the 
apostle  does  not  mean  that  this  wrath  is  now  revealed  in  the 
gospel,  for  his  object  is  to  reason  with  those  who  knew  not,  or 
who  rejected  the  gospel.  The  sim])lest  interpretation  is  that 
which  makes  Paul  declare  that  the  divine  wrath  is  clearly  made 
known;  made  known  from  heaven,  where  God  dwells,  and 
whence  he  is  said  to  look  down  on  the  children  of  men,  and 
whence  all  manifestations  of  his  character  are  said  to  proceed. 
This  revelation  is  from  heaven,  as  the  lightning  is,  which 
forces  itself  on  the  most  reluctant  vision.  Even  so  Paul  assumes 
that  God's  j)unitive  justice  forces  itself  on  the  knowledge  and 
conviction  of  every  sinner.  He,  therefore,  neither  tells  us  how 
it  is  manifested,  nor  does  he  attempt  to  prove  that  such  is  the 


ROMANS  1:  18— 32.  47 

fact.  It  is  one  of  those  obvious  and  ultimate  truths,  which, 
existing  in  every  man's  consciousness,  may  safely  be  assumed 
as  both  known  and  admitted.  It  will  be  seen  that  all  Paul's 
reasoning  on  the  subject  of  justification  rests  on  the  principle 
here  assumed.  To  what  purpose  would  it  be  to  prove  that  men 
are  sinners,  unless  God  is  determined  to  punish  sin  ?  If  retribu- 
tive justice  is  no  part  of  the  divine  character,  their  sinfidness 
may  be  admitted,  and  yet  it  may  be  consistently  maintained,  that 
they  can  be  justified  by  any  work,  moral  or  ceremonial,  which 
God  might  choose  to  appoint.  But  if  sin  must  be  punished,  then 
pardon  must  not  only  be  gratuitous,  as  it  regards  the  sinner,  but  it 
can  only  be  dispensed  on  the  ground  of  an  adequate  atonement. 

Jigainst  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men. 
Although  the  words  ungodliness  and  iinrighteousness  are  often 
used  indiscriminately,  they  are  not  to  be  considered  in  this  case 
as  synonymous,  because  Paul  distinctly  proves  that  the  Gentiles 
are  chargeable  both  with  impiety  and  immorality,  in  the  ordi- 
nary acceptation  of  these  terms.  These  two  all-comprehensive 
classes  of  sins  are  declared  to  be  the  objects  of  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure. 

Who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness.  The  word  truth 
is  here  variously  explained.  It  is  obviously  inconsistent  with 
the  context  to  understand  it  of  the  gospel,  as  though  the  apostle 
meant  to  denounce  judgment  on  those  who  opposed  the  gospel. 
The  word  is  used  with  considerable  latitude  in  the  scrip- 
tures. It  is  often  used  for  true  religion,  including  both  its 
doctrines,  John  S:  32.  Rom.  2:  20.  2  Cor.  4:  2,  &c.  &c.,  and  its 
duties,  John  3:  21.  1  John  1:  6,  "who  do  not  the  truth,  &c." 
Such  is  probably  its  meaning  here.  The  word  rendered  to 
hold,  in  the  sense  of  having  in  possession,  is  so  used  in  1  Cor. 
7:  30.  15:  2.  Luke  8:15,  &c.  If  this  sense  be  adopted  here, 
the  word  truth  must  be  understood  objectively,  for  the  true 
doctrine;  and  in  unrighteousness  should  be  rendered  ivilh 
unrighteousness.  The  meaning  of  the  clause  would  then  be, 
'  who  have  the  truth  with  unrighteousness,'  i.  e.  although  pos- 
sessed of  the  truth  are  still  unrighteous.  See  James  2:  1,  for  a 
precisely  similar  expression,  "  my  brethren,  have  not  the  faith 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  respect  of  persons,"  i.  e.  do  not, 
if  believers,  cherish  a  respect  of  persons.  As,  however,  the  word 
also  means  to  hold  back,  to  hinder,  and  then  to  impede;  it  may 


48  ROMANS  1:  18— 32. 

be  so  understood  here,  and  the  clause  be  rendered  '  who  oppose 
the  truth  by  unrighteousness;'  or  better,  'who  wickedly  oppose 
the  truth,'  i.  e.  religion.  The  latter  interpretation  is  the  simpler 
of  the  two,  but  the  former  is  sustained,  in  some  measure,  by  a 
comparison  with  v.  21,  in  which  men  are  represented  as  know- 
ing God,  i.  e.  having  the  truth,  and  yet  acting  wickedly. 

(19)  Since  that  ivhich  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest 
in  them,  &c.  The  apostle's  object  being  to  prove  that  the  Gen- 
tiles are  justly  chargeable  with  impiety,  he  commences  by 
showing  that  they  have  not  the  excuse  of  ignorance,  since  all 
men  have  enjoyed  a  competent  revelation  of  the  divine  charac- 
ter. This,  as  is  his  manner,  he  introduces  naturally,  by  the  as- 
sociating idea  contained  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  18,  '  men  wick- 
edly oppose  the  truth,  since  they  have  a  sufficient  knowledge  of 
it;'  or  '  men  who  are  wicked,  still  have  the  truth,  since  what 
may  be  known  of  God  has  been  revealed  to  them.'  In  either 
case,  the  connexion  and  argument  are  essentially  the  same.  That 
lohich  m,ay  be  known.  Such  is  the  common  and  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  word  here  used,  and  which  suits  well  the  context 
It  is,  therefore,  to  be  preferred  to  another  rendering,  which  is 
also  philologically  correct,  according  to  which,  the  word  means 
knowledge,  '  the  knowledge  of  God  is  revealed,'  &c.  The 
words  translated  in  them,  may  be  rendered  to  them,  or  among 
them.  The  first  is  to  be  preferred,  as  it  is  more  natural  and 
more  forcible.  It  is  not  an  external  revelation  merely,  of  which 
the  apostle  is  speaking,  but  of  that  witness  of  the  existence  and 
perfections  of  God  also,  which  every  man  has  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  his  own  nature;*  and  in  virtue  of  which  alone,  he  is 
competent  to  appreciate  the  manifestations  of  God  in  his  works. 
For  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them.  The  knowledge  in 
question  is  a  revelation.  It  is  a  manifestation  of  God  in  them 
and  to  them.  Such  knowledge  is  not  a  conclusion  arrived 
at  by  a  process  of  reasoning,  but  it  is  seen  in  its  own  light 
and  felt  in  its  own  power.  The  manifestation  to  which  Paul  spe- 
cially refers,  is  that  which  is  made  in  the  external  world,  and  for 
the  right  apprehension  of  which  God  has  fashioned  our  nature.t 

*  Dei  notitia  rccondita  est  in  intimis  mentis  penetralibus. — Beza. 

I  Quod  dicit  Detim  manifestasse,  scnsus  est,  ideo  conditum  esse  hominem,  ut 
spectator  sit  fabricae  mundi ;  ideo  datos  ei  oculos,  ut  intuitu  tarn  pulchrae  imaginis 
ad  auctorein  ipsuin  fcratur. — ('alvin. 


ROMANS  1:  18—32.  49 

(20)  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things 
that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  &c.  This 
verse  is  a  confirmation  and  illustration  of  the  preceding.  The 
knowledge,  of  which  Paul  speaks,  relates  to  the  invisible  things 
of  God,  that  is,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead.  These  things, 
Paul  says,  are  seen,  though  invisible,  by  their  manifestation  in 
the  external  world.  This  manifestation  is  perpetual  and  uni- 
versal. It  is  from  the  creation  of  the  world.  These  words 
may  indeed  be  rendered  by  the  creation,  &c.,  but  not  consist- 
ently with  the  latter  part  of  the  verse;  nor  do  they,  when 
thus  rendered,  give  so  pertinent  a  sense.  These  invisible  things 
are  seen,  being  understood;  that  is,  it  is  a  mental  vision  of 
which  Paul  speaks.  The  eye  of  sense  sees  nothing  but  the  ex- 
ternal object,  the  mind  sees  mind;  and  mind  possessed  not  of 
human  power  and  perfections,  but  of  eternal  power  and  divi- 
nity. The  latter  word  (which  is  not  the  same  with  that  also  ren- 
dered Godhead,  Col.  2:9)  means  the  divine  majesty  and  ex- 
cellence, and,  therefore,  includes  all  the  divine  perfections. 
These  perfections  are  manifested  by  the  things  which  are 
mfide;  so  the  word  here  used  properly  means,  see  Eph.  2:  10; 
but  it  may  also  mean  works  generally.  '  Being  understood  by 
his  ivorks,'  would  then  include  the  dispensations  of  his  provi- 
dence, as  well  as  the  products  of  his  hands.  The  common  ver- 
sion, how-ever,  is  more  natural  and  appropriate.  So  that  they 
are  without  excuse.  These  words  are  by  many  frequently 
considered  as  depending  on  the  last  clause  of  v.  19,  'God  hath 
showed  it  unto  them,  so  that  they  are  without  excuse.'  The 
former  part  of  this  verse  is  thus  thrown  into  a  parenthesis.  The 
sense  remains  the  same.  God  has  so  manifested  himself  in  his 
works,  as  to  render  the  impiety,  and  especially  the  idolatry  of 
men,  inexcusable.  It  is  not  necessary  to  maintain  that  this  re- 
velation is  competent  to  supply  all  the  knowledge  which  a  sin- 
ner needs.  It  is  enough  that  it  renders  men  inexcusable;*  and 
as  it  is  that  by  which  they  are  to  be  judged,  ch.  2:  14,  15;  if  it 
be  disregarded,  it  renders  their  condemnation  as  just,  although 

*  Sit  haec  distinctio:  Demonstrationeni  Dei,  qua  gloriam  suam  in  crcaturis  per- 
spicuam  facit,  esse,  quantum  ad  lucem  suam,  satis  evidentem;  quantum  ad  nos- 
tram  caecitatem,  non  adeo  sulficere.  Caeterum  non  ita  caeci  sumus,  ut  ignoran- 
tiam  possiiiius  praetexerc,  quin  pervcrsitatis  arguamur. — Calvin. 

7 


50  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

not  so  severe,  as  the  condemnation  of  those  who  disregard  the 
clearer  light  of  the  gospel.  The  sentiment  of  this  verse  occurs 
in  Acts  l4:  17,  "Nevertheless,  he  left  not  himself  without  a 
witness,  in  that  he  did  good,  and  gave  us  rain  from  heaven,  fill- 
ing our  hearts  with  food  and  gladness."* 

(21)  Because  that,  lohen  tliey  knew  God,  they  glorified 
Jmn  not  as  God,  neither  ivere  tliankfid,  &c.  That  men  are 
justly  chargeable  with  impiety,  Paul  proves,  because  they  had 
a  competent  knowledge  of  God,  but  did  not  act  agreeal)ly  to  it 
When  they  knew,  means  either  having  the  opportunity  of 
knowing,  or  actually  possessing  this  knowledge.  The  latter  is 
probably  the  apostle's  meaning.  God  has  revealed  himself  in 
the  constitution  of  human  nature,  and  in  his  works,  to  all  men. 
This  revelation  is  indeed  greatly  and  generally  neglected;  and 
other,  and  delusive  guides  followed,  so  that  the  heathen  arc 
commonly  ignorant  of  what  it  teaches.  In  like  manner  the 
bible  is  neglected,  and  those  to  whom  it  is  sent,  disregarding  its 
directions,  follow  those  who  teach  for  doctrines  \he  command- 
ments of  men.  In  both  cases,  however,  there  is  knowledge  pre- 
sented, and  a  revelation  made;  and  in  both  is  ignorance  without 
excuse.  As  there  is  no  apology  for  the  impiety  of  the  heathen 
to  be  found  in  any  unavoidable  ignorance  of  God,  their  idolatry 
is  the  fruit  of  depravity.  The  apostle,  therefore,  says,  when 
they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as  God,  neither  were 
thankful.  These  two  expressions  include  every  act  of  worship. 
The  former  refers  to  the  recognition  of  all  the  divine  perfec- 
tions, the  latter  to  the  acknowledgement  of  God  as  the  source  of 
all  good.  To  regard  God  as  possessed  of  all  excellence,  and  as 
the  giver  of  all  good,  is  true  piety. 

Instead  of  thus  rendering  unto  God  the  homage  and  grati- 
tude which  are  his  due,  they  became  vain  in  their  imagina- 
tions, and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.     '  They  became 

*  That  the  hcatht'ii  themselves  recofynizcd  the  works  of  God  as  a  manifestation  of 
his  existence  and  glory,  is  evident  from  their  frequent  dQclarations  to  this  effect. 
.Aristotle,  De  Mundo  VI.,  -Kudrj  5vr)T/i  (pvSSt  ysvofiSvog  dS£wPr)T05,  d-ff'  auTWV  <rwv 
i^yuv  '^su^sTrai  6  Sso?.  Cicero,  'J'usc.  I.  29,  Deum  non  vides,  tamen  — Deum 
agnoscis  ex  operil-us  ejus.  Seneca,  cpistola  90,  Primus  est  dcorum  cultus  deos 
credere;  deinde  rcdderc  illis  majestatem  suam,  reddere  boiiitatem,  sine  qua  nulla 
uiajestas  est;  scire  illos  esse  qui  j)racsident  mundo,  (|ui  uiii versa  vi  sua  temperant, 
4^111  huinani  generis  tutclam  gcrunt. — Wetstein  and  Uhqtius. 


ROMANS  1:  18— 32.  51 

vain,'  i.  e.  foolish,  senseless,  devoid  of  true  wisdom.  "  In  their 
imaginations  j"  or  opinions.  The  word  here  used,  often  occurs 
in  a  bad  sense,  2  Cor.  10:  4.  Prov.  6:  18.  Jer.  11:  19.  And,  in 
this  case,  it  is  the  foolish  and  wicked  opinions  respecting  divine 
things  into  which  the  heathen  were  sunk,  that  are  intended.* 

Their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  '  Their  soul  lost  all  right 
apprehensions  of  the  divine  character  and  perfections,  and  they 
were,  hence,  able  to  worship  as  gods,  birds,  beasts  and  crcep- 
ins:  thinais.'  Foolish  means  both  senseless  and  wicked,  see  v. 
31,  and  ch.  10:  19.  The  word  heart  stands  here,  as  very  fre- 
quently, for  the  ivhole  soul.  Matt.  13:  15,  men  "understand 
with  the  heart;"  Rom.  10:  10,  they  '  believe  with  the  heart;' 
2  Cor.  4:  6,  the  heart  is  enlightened  with  knowledge;  Eph.  1: 
8,  '  the  eyes  of  the  heart  (according  to  the  true  reading)  are  en- 
lightened;' and  so  frequently  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. It  should  be  remarked,  that  the  scriptures  are  very  far 
from  making  the  broad  distinction  between  the  understanding 
and  affections,  or  between  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties, 
which  we  are  so  apt  to  make.  They  do  not  speak  of  the  soul 
as  though  it  consisted  of  separate  and  independent  parts,  but  as 
one.  Hence,  as  just  stated,  the  word  heart  is  used  indiscrimi- 
nately for  the  seat  of  the  afi'ections,  and  of  the  purely  intellec- 
tual exercises.  And  hence,  too,  the  word  understanding,  or 
mind,  is  used  for  the  seat  of  the  affections,  Eph,  2:  3;  "de- 
sires of  the  mind,"  Col.  1:  21.  Accordingly,  throughout  the 
bible,  we  find  the  ideas  of  wickedness  and  folly,  of  wisdom  and 
piety  intimately  related.  In  scriptural  language,  a  fool  is  an 
impious  man;  the  ivise  are  the  pious;  ybo/wAwei'*  is  sin;  un- 
derstanding is  religion,  and  ivisdom  is  true  piety.  "  Wisdom 
is  the  principal  thing;  therefore  get  wisdom;  and  with  all 
thy  gettings,  get  understanding,"  Prov.  4:  7.  Prov.  3:  13,  35, 
and  very  often  elsewhere.  The  vanity,  therefore,  of  which 
Paul  speaks,  as  consequent  on  the  loss  of  the  knowledge  of  God, 
is  very  far  from  designating  merely  the  folly  of  the  heathen;  it 
expresses  their  whole  moral  state.  Men  cannot  be  such  fools, 
without  being  wicked.  In  Eph.  4:17,  Paul  makes  the  vanity 
of  the  heathen  to  include  ignorance,  alienation  from  the  life  of 


*  A  lies  Dcnken  dcs  Mcnschen  ist  nur  Erscheinung  seines  Gemiithcs,  seines  in- 
neni  Seyns. — Tholuck. 


52  ROMANS  1:  18— 32. 

God,  hardness  of  heart,  and  devotion  to  sensual  pleasures;  com- 
pare 1  Pet.  1:  18. 

(22)  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  become  fools. 
The  word  translated  professing,  means  either  simply  affirm- 
ing, saying,  Acts  25:  19,  or  boasting,  pretending  to  be.  The 
latter  is  its  meaning  here.*  '  While  making  the  highest  preten- 
sions to  wisdom,  they  exhibited  the  greatest  folly.'  The  evidence 
and  illustration  of  this  remark  follows  in  the  next  verse.  That 
rational  creatures,  instead  of  reverencing  the  God  who  reveals 
himself  in  all  his  works,  should  worship  creatures  inferior  to 
themselves,  even  brute  beasts,  and  offensive  reptiles,  is  the  most 
humbling  and  melancholy  evidence  of  the  imbecility  and  ruin 
of  our  race.  It  is  to  be  remarked,  also,  that  the  higher  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  nations  in  refinement  and  philosophy,  the 
greater,  as  a  general  rule,  the  degradation  and  folly  of  their 
systems  of  religion.  Witness  the  state  of  opinion  and  practice 
on  this  subject  among  the  Egyptians,  Greeks  and  Romans,  in 
comparison  with  the  simpler  faith  of  earlier  nations,  or  of  the  ab- 
origines of  America.  The  further  men  have  departed  from  the 
teachings  of  divine  revelation,  however  made,  and  the  more 
they  have  relied  on  their  own  understanding,  the  more  deplo- 
rably besotted  and  foolish  have  they  become.  And  it  matters 
little  under  what  external  circumstances  this  departure  is  made, 
the  result  is  always  the  same.  In  the  midst  of  all  the  light  of 
modern  science,  and  of  the  reflection  from  the  word  of  God, 
which  illuminates  the  whole  atmosphere,  the  modern  material- 
ists of  France,  and  pantheistical  idealists  of  Germany,  while 
professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  have  become  fools,  as  con- 
spicuously and  as  fully  as  any  of  the  ancient  deniers  of  the  only 
living  and  true  God;  and  for  the  very  same  reason;  'they  do 
not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge.' 

(23)  .u'ind  changed  t/ie  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into 
an  image  made  like  unto  corruptible  man,  &c.  Herein  con- 
sisted their  amazing  folly,  that  they  should  worship  the  lowest 
of  his  creatures  instead  of  the  glorious  Creator.  The  glory  of 
the  incorruptible  God  is  equivalent  with  the  glorious  incor- 
ruptible God.     The  phrase  rendered  changed  the  glory  into, 

•  For  numerous  examples  of  tliis  use  of  the  word,  see  Wetstein  on  lliis  pas- 
sage. 


ROMANS  1:  18— 32.  53 

&c.,  may  more  correctly  be  rendered  exchanged  the  glory  for .^ 
&c.  '  They  exchanged  the  glorious  God  for  senseless  idols.' 
Compare  Ps.  106:  20,*  which  may  be  translated,  'they  ex- 
changed their  glory  for  the  similitude  of  an  ox  that  eateth 
grass;'  Jer.  2:  11,  "my  people  have  changed  their  glory  for 
that  which  doth  not  profit;"  Hosea  4:  7.  Greater  folly  than 
this  exchange  of  the  living  and  glorious  God,  for  the  mere  image 
of  birds,  beasts  and  reptiles,  the  world  has  never  seen.  That 
the  heathen  really  worshipped  such  objects  is  well  known. 
Philot  says  that  the  whole  land  of  Egypt  was  covered  with 
temples  and  groves,  dedicated  to  dogs,  wolves,  lions,  land  and 
water  animals,  crocodiles,  birds,  &c.  With  regard  to  the  vast 
majority  of  the  people,  the  homage  terminated  on  the  animal  or 
the  idol;  and  the  case  was  but  little  better  with  the  pantheistical 
refiners  and  defenders  of  this  system,  who  professed  to  worship 
the  great  and  universal  divine  principle,  in  these  particular 
manifestations.  Why  should  the  higher  manifestation  of  God 
in  the  human  soul,  do  homage  to  the  lower  developement  of  the 
universal  principle  in  a  reptile  ?  We  never  find  the  sacred 
writers  making  any  account  of  this  common  subterfuge  and 
apology  for  idolatry.  All  who  bowed  down  before  a  stock  or 
stone,  they  denounced  as  worshipping  gods  which  their  own 
hands  had  made,  which  had  eyes  but  saw  not,  ears  but  heard 
not,  and  hands  that  could  not  save. 

The  universal  idolatry  of  the  heathen  world,  committed  under 
a  degree  of  light  which  rendered  it  inexcusable,  is  the  evidence 
which  Paul  adduces  to  prove  that  they  are  "ungodly,"  and 
consequently  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God. 

In  the  passage  which  follows,  from  v.  24  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter,  he  designs  to  show  that  the  Gentiles  are  not  only  un- 
godly, but  unrighteous.  He  traces  their  immorality  to  their 
impiety. 

(24)  Wherefore  God  also  gave  them  up  to  tincleanness 
through  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  &c.  They  having 
abandoned  God,  he  abandoned  them.  He  not  only  permitted 
them  to  take  their  course,  but  he  judicially,  that  is,  as  a  punish- 

•  Compare  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagmt  version  of  this  verse  with  the 
expression  used  by  Paul. 

•j-  Leg,  ad  Cai.  566,  as  quoted  by  Wetstein. 


54  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

ment,  withdrew  and  withheld  the  restraints  of  his  providence  and 
Spirit,  and  gave  them  up  to  the  dominion  of  their  own  wicked 
passions.*  The  construction  of  this  verse  is  rather  doubtful. 
It  may  be  construed,  as  by  our  translators,  '  he  delivered  them 
to  uncleanness  through  the  lusts  of  their  hearts,'  or  '  he  gave 
them  up  to  the  unclean  lusts  of  their  hearts;'  the  words  rendered 
unto  tincleanness  being  then  made  to  qualify  the  word  for 
lusts  or  desires.  The  former  is  much  the  most  probable;  see 
vs.  2G,  28,  for  the  same  construction.  To  dishonour  their  own 
bodies  hetiveen  themselves.  This  infinitive  to  dishonour  (which 
in  the  Greek  has  the  article  in  the  genitive  before  it)  may  be 
simply  explanatory  of  the  word  uncleanness,  '  the  uncleanness 
of  dishonouring  their  bodies,'  i.  e.  which  consisted  therein;  or 
it  may  express  the  object  or  result.  Here,  of  course,  the  latter 
view  of  the  passage  is  to  be  preferred,  '  so  that  they  dishon- 
oured, &c.'  The  natural  consequence  of  turning  from  God,  is 
the  destruction  of  all  the  better  governing  feelings  of  our  nature; 
so  that  there  is  nothing  to  restrain  us  from  sinking  into  the 
most  degrading  vices.  The  soul,  when  turned  from  God,  is 
turned  from  its  only  proper  object  and  portion,  and  therefore 
is  destitute  of  support  and  restraint.  The  same  sentiment  whicli 
is  expressed  in  this  and  the  preceding  verses,  is  I'epeated  in 
those  Avhich  immediately  follow. 

(25)  Who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  &:c.  '  God 
delivered  them  up,  because  they  were  such  as  those  who 
changed,'  see  Winer,  p.  193.  This  verse  may  be  better  ren- 
dered '  who  exchanged  the  truth  of  God  for  a  lie,'  see  v.  23.  The 
truth  of  God  may  mean  the  true  God;  and  a  lie,  a  false  God, 
which  is  a  lie,  a  mere  deception.  The  word  is  applied  to  any 
thing  which  is  not  what  it  professes,  or  is  supposed  to  be. 
Hence,  false  doctrines  are  called  a  lie,  2  Thess.  2:  11;  and 
false  Gods,  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  also  so  called,  compare 
Ps.  31:  6.  The  sense  of  the  passage  would  then  be,  *  who 
exchange  the  true,  for  a  false  God.'  Or  the  jiassagc  may  mean 
'  who  exchange  the  true  nature  of  God,  for  a  false  conception  of 
his  character.'     The  general  idea  is,  in  either  case,  the  same. 

*  Zu  glcicher  Zcit  stcllt  cr  abcr  diesc  sittlichc  Vcrderbniss  auch  als  oin  gottliclios 
ficricht  dar.  'At  the  sami"  time  lie  represents  this  moral  corruption  (of  the  hcatlieii) 
as  a  divine  punishment.' — Tuolick. 


ROMANS  1:  IS— 32.  55 

x^nd  luorship  and  serve  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator. 
This  clause  is  an  amplification  of  the  precedino-.  They  ex- 
changed the  true  God  for  idols,  and  worshipped  the  creature 
rather  than  the  Creator.  Worship  and  serve;  the  former  of 
these  words  refers  more  directly  to  the  inward  homage  of  the 
heart,  and  the  latter,  to  the  outward  expression  of  it.  Instead 
of  translating  more  than,  the  Greek  may  he  rendered  against, 
to  the  injury  of,  '  they  worshipped  the  creature  to  the  injury 
of  the  Creator:'  or,  passing  by,  neglecting,  'they  worshipped 
the  creature  to  the  neglect  of  the  Creator.'  The  last  is  best  suited 
to  the  context.  The  charge  is,  that  instead  of  worshipping  God, 
they  worshipped  his  creatures,  &c.  When  the  sacred  writers 
speak  of  God  as  neglected  or  insulted  by  men,  they  commonly 
add  an  expression  of  reverence  and  pious  awe,  as  well  to  show 
the  wickedness  of  those  who  forsake  such  a  God,  as  to  relieve 
their  own  hearts.  So  the  prophets  call  God  "  the  holy  one  of 
Israel,"  when  they  speak  of  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  those 
who  refuse  to  reverence  him.  Is.  1 :  4.  Thus  Paul  renders 
clearer  the  sin  of  those  who  worship  the  creature  rather  than 
the  Creator,  by  declaring  him  to  be  worthy  of  all  praise.  Who 
is  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.  Blessed,  i.  e.  worthy  to  be  praised, 
or  reverenced.  This  is  the  word  used  almost  uniformly  in  such 
doxologies,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Amen  is  a 
Hebrew  word,  signifying  true,  and  also,  truth.  When  used 
adverbially  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence,  it  expresses  affirma- 
tion or  assurance,  verily:  at  the  end,  desire  or  approbation,  so 
let  it  be,  or  it  is  true.  It  is  therefore  employed  to  express 
assent  to  the  prayers  offered  by  one  in  the  name  of  others. 

(26)  For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  to  vile  affections, 
&c.  This  verse  repeats,  in  a  more  definite  form,  the  idea  of 
V.  24.  The  reasons  why  Paul  refers  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
sins  of  uncleanness,  in  illustration  and  proof  of  the  degradation 
of  the  heathen,  probably  arc,  1.  That  these  sins  are  always 
intimately  connected  with  idolatry,  forming  often  even  a  part  of 
the  worship  rendered  to  the  false  gods;  2.  That  in  turning  from 
the  pleasures  of  holiness,  or  intercourse  with  God,  men  naturally 
turn  to  the  pleasures  of  sense;  3.  That  these  sins  are  peculiarly 
brutalizing,  leading  sooner  to  the  destruction  of  all  elevated 
feeling,  and  especially  of  all  sense  of  divine  things,  than  almost 
any  otlier;  4.  That  they  were  the  most  notorious,  prevalent 


56  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

and  openly  acknowledged  and  defended  of  all  the  crimes  of  the 
heathen.  As  men  degraded  God,  they  also  degraded  them- 
selves below  the  level  of  the  beasts,  by  their  devotion  to  worse 
than  brutal  passions.* 

(27)  This  corruption  of  morals  was  confmed  to  no  one 
class  or  sex.  Paul  first  refers  to  the  degradation  of  females 
among  the  heathen,  because  they  are  always  the  last  to  be 
affected  in  the  decay  of  morals;  and,  therefore,  when  they  are 
abandoned,  the  very  fountains  of  purity  are  corrupted.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  say  more  than  that  virtue  has  lost  its  hold  on  the 
female  sex  in  any  community,  to  produce  the  conviction  that  it 
has  already  reached  the  lowest  point  of  degradation. 

Paul  again  presents  the  idea  that  this  deep  depravity  of  the 
heathen  was  the  consequence  and  punishment  of  their  abandon- 
ment of  God.  Receiving  in  tliemselves  that  recompense  of 
their  error  which  was  meet.  Error,  aberration,  wandering 
from  God,  or  truth,  or  virtue.  Hence  the  word  is  used 
for  apostacy,  Ezek.  38:  10,  and  perhaps  2  Pet.  2:  IS;  for 
deceit,  and  also  ivickedness  generally,  James  5:  20.  Jude  v. 
11.  Here,  from  the  context,  the  first  meaning  appears  to  be  the 
best.  It  was  wandering  from  God  which  brought  them  to  such 
degradation.  "  Them  that  honour  me,  I  will  honour,  and  they 
that  despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed,"!  1  Sam.  2:  30.  Ac- 
cording to  another  interpretation,  the  error  here  intended  is  the 
commission  of  the  unnatural  crimes  just  spoken  of;  and  the 
recompense,  the  natural  evils  consequent  upon  them.  This 
also  gives  a  good  sense,  but  not  so  consistent  with  the  drift  of 
the  whole  passage. 

(28)  And  even  as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their 
knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  &c. 
Another  repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  vs.  24,  26,  that  those 
who  abandon  God,  he  also  abandons.      To  have  in  knowledge 

*  How  common  the  crimes  mentioned  in  this  and  the  following  verse  were,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  declaration  of  Martial,  that  no  one  was  so  timidly  modest  as  to 
fear  being  detected  in  their  commission.     See  GiioTirs  on  v.  27. 

+  The  heathen  themselves  often  express  the  sentiment  that  impiety  is  the  source 
of  all  other  moral  evils.  Siliiis  IV.  794,  Heu  primae  scelerum  causae  mortalibus 
acgris  naturam  nesciri  Deum.  Cicero,  Natura  Deorum  12,  Haud  scio,  an, 
pietatc  adversus  Deos  sul)lata,  fides  ctiam  et  socictas,  et  una  excellenlissima  virtus 
justilia  tollatur. — Wetsteiit. 


ROMANS  1:  IS— 32.  57 

is  a  stronger  expression  than  to  know.  '  They  did  not  deem 
it  worth  while  to  retain  the  knowledge  of  God.'  The  ground 
form  of  the  verb  rendered  they  did  not  like,  means,  1.  To 
test  or  jirove;  2.  To  ajiprove,  to  judge  wprthy,  1  Cor.  16:  3, 
*' whom  ye  shall  approve;"  3.  To  discern  or  decide  upon. 
The  second  signification  seems  best  suited  to  this  passage. 
'  They  did  not  think  it  of  any  account  to  retain  the  knowledge 
of  the  true  God.' 

Reprobate  mind.  The  word  for  reprobate  is  derived  from 
the  same  root  with  the  verb  just  spoken  of.  There  is,  there- 
fore, a  correspondence  ])ctween  the  terms  which  is  not  pre- 
served in  our  version.  '  As  they  did  not  approve  of  God,  he 
gave  them  up  to  a  mind  which  no  one  could  approve.'  The 
word  literally  means  that  lohich  cannot  bear  the  test;  see  1 
Cor.  9:  27.  2  Cor.  13:  5 — 7.  It  is  applied,  therefore,  to  any 
thing  which  is  actually  rejected,  or  is  worthy  of  universal  dis- 
approbation. This  is  its  meaning  generally,  if  not  universally,  in 
common  Greek,  as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament.  Beza,  Ben- 
gel,  and  many  others,  take  the  word  in  an  active  sense,  '  a  mind 
which  cannot  judge,  or  devoid  of  judgment.'*  The  meaning 
would  then  be,  '  a  mind  incapable  of  estimating  and  apprecia- 
ting things  aright;'  so  that  they  commit  the  gi-eatest  crimes  as 
though  they  were  matters  of  indifference.  This  gives  indeed  a 
very  good  sense,  but  not  being  supported  by  the  use  of  the 
word  elsewhere,  the  common  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred. 

To  do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient.  This  is  the 
consequence  of  the  dereliction  just  spoken  of,  and  the  natural 
fruit  of  a  reprobate  mind.  Things  not  convenient  are  things 
which  are  not  becoming  the  nature  or  duties  of  man.  They 
include  all  the  crimes  enumerated  in  the  following  verses. 

(29 — 31)  Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  fornica- 
tion, tvickedness,  &c.  These  and  other  crimes  were  not  of  rare 
occurrence.  The  heathen  were  filled  with  them.  They  not 
only  abounded,  but  in  many  cases  were  palliated,  and  even 
justified.  To  their  existence  and  prevalence,  therefore,  Paul 
appeals  as  to  a  notorious  fact.     Dark  as  the  picture  here  drawn 

*   Pervcrsam   illis  mentom   tlodit  Domimis,  quae  nihil  I'nm  probare  posset. — 

Calvin.  Hoc  loco  active  iiotatur  mens,  quae  p)obat  minime  probanda;  cui  rclicti 
sunt,  qui  raaximc  probanda  non  probarunt. — B£irGJ::L. 

8 


58  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

is,  of  the  morals  of  the  heathen  world,  It  is  not  so  dark  as  that 
drawn  by  the  most  distinguished  Greek  and  Latin  authors  of 
their  respective  countrymen.  On  the  two  preceding  verses, 
and  on  every  word  in  those  which  follow  to  v.  32,  Wetstein 
and  Grotius  quote  even  ad  nauseam  from  ancient  writers, 
passages  which  more  than  bear  out  the  dreadful  charges  of  the 
apostle.  See  also  Leland's  Work  on  the  Necessity  for  a  Divine 
Revelation,  and  Tholuck's  Dissertation  on  the  Morals  of  the 
Heathen,  &c.,  translated  for  the  Biblical  Repository,  Vol.  II. 
What  Paul  says  of  the  ancient  heathen  is  found  to  be  true,  in 
all  its  essential  features,  of  those  of  our  own  day.  Wherever 
men  have  existed,  there  have  they  manifested  themselves  to 
be  sinners,  ungodly  and  unrighteous,  and  consequently  justly 
exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God. 

(32)  Who  knowing  the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  which 
commit  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  the 
same,  but  have  pleasure  in  them  that  do  them.  As  Paul  had 
before  showed  that  the  impiety  of  the  heathen  was  inexcusable, 
inasmuch  as  they  had  a  knowledge  of  God,  so  he  here  shows 
that  their  immorality  is  equally  without  defence.  These  crimes 
were  not  committed  ignorantly.  They  knew  i\\e  judgment  of 
God.  The  word  rendered  judgment,  as  well  as  the  corres- 
ponding Hebrew  term,  is  used  in  a  very  wide  sense  in  the 
scriptures,  for  any  thing  which  God  has  ordained  or  commanded; 
as  in  the  frequent  phrase,  "thy  judgments,"  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Hence  it  includes  the  law  of  God.  This  is  its  meaning 
here, '  they  know  the  law  of  God — what  he  has  commanded;'  see 
Luke  1:  6.  Rom.  2:  26.  They  are  acquainted  not  only  with  the 
precept,  but  the  sanction  of  this  law;  they  know  not  only  that 
these  crimes  arc  forbidden,  but  that  those  who  do  them  are 
worthy  of  death.  Death  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  means  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  all  those  evils  by  which  sin  is  punished, 
Rom.  6:  23.  The  idea,  therefore,  here  is,  that  the  heathen 
knew  that  they  deserved  punishment  for  their  crimes;  in  other 
words,  that  they  were  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God.  How 
they  knew  this,  Paul  docs  not  licre  say,  but  explains  in  the 
next  chap.  v.  14.  It  was  a  knowledge  written  upon  their 
hearts,  or  included  in  the  very  constitution  of  their  nature;  it 
was  implied  in  their  being  moral  beings.  The  crimes  of  the 
heathen  were  not  only  aggravated  by  being  committed  against 


ROMANS  1:  18—32.  59 

a  knowledge  of  their  turpitude  and  ill  desert,  but  also  by  their 
being  deliberate.  They  did  not  commit  such  offences  in  the 
heat  of  passion  merely,  but  they  took  pleasure  in  those  who 
did  them.  They  were,  of  set  purpose  and  fixed  preference, 
wicked;  and  the  promoters  of  all  iniquity.  Such  is  Paul's 
argument  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are  all  under  sin,  are  justly 
chargeable  with  impiety  and  immorality,  and  consequently  ex- 
posed to  the  divine  displeasure. 

Doctrines. 

1.  The  punitive  justice  of  God  is  an  essential  attribute  of  his 
nature.  This  attribute  renders  the  punishment  of  sin  neces- 
sary, and  is  the  foundation  of  the  need  of  a  vicarious  atonement, 
in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sinners.  This  doctrine  the  apostle 
assumes  as  a  first  principle,  and  makes  the  basis  of  his  whole 
exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  v.  18. 

2.  That  sin  is  a  proper  object  of  punishment,  and  that,  under 
the  righteous  government  of  God,  it  will  be  punished,  are  mo- 
ral axioms,  which  have  '  a  self-evidencing  light,'  whenever  pro- 
posed to  the  moral  sense  of  men,  vs.  18,  32. 

3.  God  has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness  among  his 
rational  creatures.  Both  in  reference  to  his  own  nature  and  to 
the  rule  of  duty,  he  has,  in  his  works  and  in  the  human  heart, 
given  sufficient  light  to  render  the  impiety  and  immorality  of 
men  inexcusable,  vs.  19,  20,  32. 

4.  Natural  religion  is  not  a  sufficient  guide  to  salvation. 
What  individual  or  what  nation  has  it  ever  led  to  right  views 
of  God  or  of  his  law?  The  experience  of  the  whole  world, 
under  all  the  variety  of  circumstances  in  which  men  have  ex- 
isted, proves  its  insufficiency;  and,  consequently,  the  necessity 
of  a  special  divine  revelation,  vs.  21 — 23. 

5.  The  heathen,  who  have  only  the  revelation  of  God  in  his 
works  and  in  their  own  hearts,  aided  by  the  obscure  tradition- 
ary knowledge  which  has  come  down  to  them,  need  the  gospel. 
In  point  of  fact,  the  light  which  they  enjoy  does  not  lead  them 
to  God  and  holiness,  vs.  21 — 23, 

6.  Error  (on  moral  and  religious  subjects)  has  its  root  in  de- 
pravity. Men  are  ignorant  of  God  and  duty,  because  they  do 
not  like  to  retain  him  in  their  knowledge,  vs.  21,  28. 

7.  God  ofLcn  punishes  one  sin  by  al)andoning  the  sinner  to 


60  ROMANS  1:  18—32. 

the  commission  of  others.  Paul  repeats  this  idea  three  times, 
vs.  24,  26,  28.  This  judicial  abandonment  is  consistent  with 
the  holiness  of  God,  and  the  free  agency  of  man.  God  does 
not  impel  or  entice  to  evil.  He  ceases  to  restrain.  He  says 
of  the  sinner,  Let  him  alone,  vs.  24 — 28. 

8.  Religion  is  the  only  true  foundation,  and  the  only  effec- 
tual safeguard  for  morality.  Those  who  al)andon  God,  he 
abandons.  Irreligion  and  immorality,  therefore,  have  ever  been 
found  inseparably  connected,  vs.  24 — 28. 

9.  It  evinces,  in  general,  greater  depravity  to  encourage 
others  in  the  commission  of  crimes,  and  to  rejoice  in  their  com- 
mission, than  to  commit  them  one's  self,  v.  32. 

10.  The  most  reprobate  sinner  carries  about  with  him  a 
knowledge  of  his  just  exposure  to  the  wrath  of  God.  Con- 
science can  never  be  entirely  extirpated,  v.  32. 

Remarks. 

1.  It  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  sin,  that  it  should  be  inex- 
cusable, and  worthy  of  punishment.  Instead,  therefore,  of  pal- 
liating its  enormity,  we  should  endeavour  to  escape  from  its 
penalty,  vs.  18,  32. 

2.  As  the  works  of  God  reveal  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head, we  should  accustom  ourselves  to  sec  in  tliem  the  manifes- 
tations of  his  perfections,  vs.  18 — 21. 

3.  The  human  intellect  is  as  erring  as  the  human  licart.  We 
can  no  more  find  truth  than  holiness  when  estranged  from  God; 
even  as  we  lose  both  light  and  heat  when  we  depart  from  the 
sun.  Those,  in  every  age,  have  sunk  deepest  into  folly,  who 
have  relied  most  on  their  own  understandings.  '  In  thy  light 
only,  0  God,  can  we  see  light,'  v.  21,  &c. 

4.  If  the  sins  of  the  heathen,  committed  under  the  feeble 
light  of  nature,  be  inexcusable,  how  great  must  be  the  aggrava- 
tion of  those  committed  under  the  light  of  the  scriptures,  v.  20. 

5.  As  the  light  of  nature  is  insufficient  to  lead  the  heathen 
to  God  and  holiness,  it  is  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  urgent 
of  duties  to  send  tliem  the  light  of  the  bible,  v.  20 — 23. 

G.  Men  should  remember  that  their  security  from  open  and 
gross  sins  is  not  in  themselves,  but  in  God;  and  they  shoukl  ri'- 
gard  as  the  worst  of  punishments,  his  withdrawing  from  them 
his  Holy  Spirit,  v.  24— 2S. 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  fil 

7.  Sins  of  uncleanness  are  peculiarly  debasing  and  demoral- 
izing. To  be  preserved  from  them  is  mentioned  in  scripture 
as  a  mark  of  the  divine  iavour,  Ecc.  7:  26.  Prov.  22:  14;  to  be 
abandoned  to  them,  as  the  mark  of  reprobation. 

8.  To  take  pleasure  in  those  who  do  good  makes  us  better, 
as  to  delight  in  those  who  do  evil,  is  the  surest  way  to  become 
even  more  degraded  than  they  are  themselves,  v.  32. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Contents. 
The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  establish  the  same  charges 
against  the  Jews,  which  had  just  been  proved  against  the  Gen- 
tiles, to  show  that  they  also  were  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God. 
It  consists  of  three  parts.  The  first  contains  an  exhibition  of 
those  simple  principles  of  justice  upon  which  all  men  are  to 
be  judged,  vs.  1 — 16.  The  second  is  an  application  of  these 
principles  to  the  case  of  the  Jews,  vs.  17 — 24.  The  third  is  an 
exhibition  of  the  true  nature  and  design  of  circumcision,  in- 
tended to  show  that  the  Jews  could  not  expect  exemption  on  the 
ground  of  that  rite,  vs.  25 — 39. 

CHAP.  2:  1—16. 

^naljjsls. 
That  men  so  impious  and  immoral,  as  those  described  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  deserved  the  divine  pleasure,  &c.,  and  could 
never,  by  their  own  works,  secure  the -favour  of  God,  the  Jew  was 
prepared  readily  to  admit.  But  might  there  not  be  a  set  of  men, 
who,  in  virtue  of  some  promise  on  the  part  of  God,  or  of  the 
performance  of  some  special  duties,  could  claim  exemption  from 
the  execution  of  God's  purpose  to  punish  all  sin?  To  determine 
this  point,  it  was  necessary  to  consider  a  little  more  fully  the 
justice  of  God,  in  order  to  see  whether  it  admitted  of  impunity 
to  sinners  on  the  ground  supposed.  This  first  section  of  the 
chapter,  therefore,  is  employed  in  expanding  the  principle  of 
V.  IS  of  the  first  chapter.  It  contains  a  developemcnt  of  those 
principles  of  justice  v/hich  commend  themselves  at  once  to 
every  man's  conscience.     The  first  is,  that  he  who  condemns 


G3  ROMANS  2:  1—16. 

in  others  what  he  does  himself,  does  thereby  condemn  himself, 
V.  1.  The  second,  that  God's  judgments  arc  according  to  the" 
truth  or  real  state  of  the  case,  v.  2.  The  third,  that  the  spe- 
cial goodness  of  God,  manifested  towards  any  individual  or  peo- 
ple, forms  no  ground  of  exemption  from  merited  punishment, 
but  being  designed  to  lead  them  to  repentance,  when  misim- 
proved  aggravates  their  condemnation,  vs.  3 — 5.  The  fourth, 
that  the  ground  of  judgment  is  the  works,  not  the  external  re- 
lations or  professions  of  men;  God  will  punish  the  wicked  and 
reward  the  good,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  without  the  least  re- 
spect of  persons,  vs.  6 — 11.  The  fifth,  that  the  standard  of 
judgment  is  the  light  which  men  have  severally  enjoyed.  Those 
having  a  written  law  shall  be  judged  by  it,  and  those  who  have 
only  the  law  written  on  their  hearts,  (and  that  the  heathen  have 
such  a  law  is  proved  by  the  operations  of  conscience,  vs.  13 — 
15)  shall  be  judged  by  that  law,  v.  12.  These  are  the  princi- 
ples according  to  which  all  men  are  to  be  judged  in  the  last 
day  by  Jesus  Christ,  v.  16". 

Commentary. 
(1)  Therefore  thou  art  inexeusahte,  O  ?nan,  7vhosoerer  thou 
art  that  judgest,  &c.  In  order  to  feel  the  force  of  the  apos- 
tle's reasoning,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  princi])al 
ground  on  which  the  Jews  expected  acceptance  with  God,  was 
the  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham,  in  which  he  promised  to 
be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed  after  him.  This  promise  they 
understood  as  securing  the  salvation  of  all  those  who  retained 
their  relation  to  Abraham,  by  the  observance  of  the  law,  and 
the  rite  of  circumcision.  They  expected,  therefore,  to  l)c  treat- 
ed as  the  favourites  of  God,  and  viewed,  not  so  much  in  their 
own  personal  character,  as  in  their  relation  to  their  great  ])ro- 
gcnitor.  'I'his  point  will  be  more  fully  noticed  in  the  next 
chapter.  We  cannot  sufficientl}'  admire  the  skill  with  which 
Paul  conducts  his  argument  against  this  ground  of  confidence. 
lie  does  not  even  name  the  Jew,  and  say,  '  Therefore,  0  Jew, 
thou  art  inexcusable,  &c.'  He  begins  at  such  a  distance,  that 
the  prejudices  of  his  readers  are  not  at  all  aroused.  He  states 
Ids  principles  so  generally  and  so  sim])ly,  thai  they  must  have 
forced  the  assent  of  the  Jew,  l)efore  he  was  at  all  aware  of  their 
uj)j)lication  to  himself.     They  are  indeed  self-evident,  and  yet 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  63 

when  admitted  and  applied,  are  found  to  be  destructive  of  the 
very  foundation  on  which  the  chikb'en  of  Abraham  expected 
to  inherit  his  blessing. 

The  connexion,  indicated  by  the  word  therefore,  between 
this  and  the  preceding  chapter,  is  not  very  obvious.  It  may  be 
explained  thus:  in  v.  32,  ch.  1,  it  is  stated,  that  those  who  com- 
mit sin  are  conscious  of  its  ill-desert;  those,  therefore,  who 
condemn  it,  acknowledge  still  more  clearly  its  desert  of  punish- 
ment, and,  of  consequence,  condemn  themselves,  if  they  are 
chargeable  with  it;  or  to  state  the  same  view  in  a  rather  differ- 
ent form,  '  Those  who  commit  sin,  are  worthy  of  death,  much 
more  those  who  encourage  and  delight  in  its  commission,  v.  32 ; 
and  still  more  obviously  than  either,  he,  who,  while  he  con- 
demns others,  himself  commits  the  same  offence.' 

Whosoever  thou  art  that  judgest.  That  the  Jew  is  intended 
in  this,  and  the  following  verses,  is  evident,  from  the  drift  of 
the  argument,  from  his  being  expressly  named  in  vs.  9,  10,  and 
from  the  direct  application  of  the  argument  to  him  in  v.  17, 
and  onward.  It  was,  no  doubt,  with  design,  that  the  apostle 
made  the  address  thus  general  in  the  first  instance.  The  prin- 
ciple stated  in  the  verse  is  true  in  relation  to  all  men.  The 
word  rendered  to  judge,  means  frequently  to  condemn,  see  v. 
12.  Acts  1:1.2  Thess.  2:  12,  &c.,  and  may  be  so  rendered 
here,  '  Thou  art  inexcusable,  vv'hosoever  thou  art  that  condemn- 
est,  for  wherein  thou  condemnest  another,  thou  condemnest 
thyself,  for  thou  that  condemnest,  doest  the  same  things.'*  The 
apostle  wished  to  show  that  the  ready  sanction,  which  the  Jew 
gave  to  the  condemnation  of  the  Gentile,  involved  the  con- 
demnation of  himself,  inasmuch  as  Jew  and  Gentile  were  to 
be  judged  by  the  same  general  principles. 

The  words  rendered  in  that  may  mean  because  that,  see  ch. 
8:  3;  or,  in  that,  eo  ipso,  in  the  very  act  of  condemning  another, 
thou  condemnest  thyself.  The  reason  for  this  declaration  fol- 
lows, '  Because  thou  that  condemnest,  doest  the  same  things.' 
The  ground  of  condemnation  is  the  thing  done,  not  the  person 
of  the  agent.     This  is  the  first  principle. 

*  The  passage,  however,  may  be  more  forcible  as  it  now  stands.  Caltin's  com- 
ment is,  Praeter  elegantcm  verborum  Graecorum  allnsioncm  xfi'veiv  ■xoCi  xaray.^ivsiv 
notanda  est  cxaggeratio,  qua  utitur.  Perinde  enim  valet  loqiiutio  acsi  diceret,  Bis 
es  damnabilis,  qui  iisdem  obnoxius  es  vitiis,  quae  ia  aliis  carpis  et  accusas. 


64  ROMANS  2:  1—16* 

(2)  But  ivc  are  sure  that  the  judgment  of  God  is  accord- 
ing to  truth,  against  them  ivhich  commit  such  things.  This 
verse  admits  of  two  interpretations.  Paul  may  say,  '  However 
perverse  your  judgments  are  in  condemning  others,  while  you 
excuse  yourself,  we  know  that  God's  judgments  are  not  thus 
partial.  His  decisions  are  according  to  the  truth,  are  correct 
and  just,  and  according  to  the  real  state  of  the  case,  and  not  the 
external  circumstances  or  relations  of  those  concerned;'  see  v. 
11.  John  8:  15,  16,  '  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh;  my  judgment  is 
true.'  The  connexion  between  this  and  the  previous  verse  is 
thus  obvious, '  Ye  judge  one  way,  but  God  judgeth  another.'  Ac- 
cording to  the  second  interpretation,  the  meaning  is,  '  Wc  know 
that  God's  judgment  is  certainly  (will  certainly  be  pronounced) 
against  all  who  do  such  things.  You  condemn  such  crimes,  and 
so  assuredly  will  God.'  Either  of  these  views  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  force  of  the  words.  See  examples  in  favour  of 
the  latter  view  in  Raphelius  on  this  verse.  The  former,  how- 
ever, is  better  suited  to  the  context  and  the  apostle's  object. 
The  word  rendered  judgment,  often  means  condemnation; 
ch.  3:  8,  "whose  condemnation  is  just;"  1  Cor.  1 1 :  29, 34, and  fre- 
quently elsewhere.  Its  more  general  sense  of  judicial  decision 
is  more  suitable,  however,  to  this  verse.  This  is  the  second 
principle.  God's  judgment  is  according  to  the  truth,  impartial, 
and  founded  upon  the  real  character  and  conduct  of  men. 

(3)  Jind  thinkest  thou,  O  man,  that  judgest  them  ivhich 
do  such  things,  &c.  '  If  God's  judgments  are  impartial  and 
just,  how  can  those  escape  who  commit  the  very  things  which 
they  condemn  in  others?'  Paul's  language  includes  the  idea 
also,  that  if  these  things  are  condemned  by  men,  how  much 
more  by  a  righteous  God.  The  former,  however,  is  the  main 
point.  It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  God  will  spare  those 
who  do  what  they  are  so  ready  to  condemn  others  for  doing. 

(4,  5)  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and 
forbeara7ice,  &c.  Paul  refers  in  this  and  the  following  verse 
to  the  common  ground  of  security  of  the  Jews.  They  were 
God's  peculiar  people;  his  goodness  towards  them  proved 
that  he  would  not  deal  with  them  as  with  others.  That  the 
Jews  really  entertained  this  opinion  is  evident,  in  the  first  place, 
from  the  apostle's  argument  here  and  in  the  next  chapter,  and 
in  other  parts  of  his  writings,  see  ch.  9  and  1 1 ;  from  such  ex- 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  65 

pressions  as  those  in  Matt.  3:  9,  "  Think  not  to  say,  we  have 
Abraham  for  our  father,"  John  8:  33;  and  from  numerous  de- 
clarations of  the  Jewish  writers  themselves  on  this  subject. 
(See  the  next  chapter.) 

The  connexion  is  distinctly  marked  by  the  particle  or;  '  Or 
admitting  the  general  principle,  that  those,  who  do  what  they 
condemn  in  others,  are  themselves  exposed  to  condemnation; 
do  you  so  abuse  the  divine  goodness,  as  to  suppose  it  will  afford 
impunity  in  sin,  when  its  real  design  is  to  lead  you  to  repent- 
ance?' Those  despise  the  goodness  of  God,  who  pervert  it, 
and  derive  from  it  a  license  to  sin,  supposing  either  that  God 
will  never  punish,  because  he  long  delays,  or  that  his  goodness 
towards  us  is  so  peculiar  that  we  shall  escape,  though  others 
perish;  see  2  Peter  3:  8,  9.  The  use  of  the  several  terms, 
goodness,  forbearance  and  long-suffer ing,  serves  to  express 
more  strongly  the  idea  of  the  divine  mercy.  The  word  ren- 
dered riches  is  a  favourite  term  with  the  sacred  writers,  to  ex- 
press the  idea  of  abundance  or  greatness,  2  Cor.  8:  2.  Eph.  1: 
7.  2 :  7,  &c.  The  word  for  goodness  is  a  general  term,  expres- 
sive of  mildness  and  kindness;  that  rendered  ybr^ecrrance  sig- 
nifies/*a/ee;zce  under  suffering,  and  also  under  provocation.  It 
is  used  also  for  a  truce  or  respite,  1  Mace.  12:  25,  and  Jose- 
phus  contra  Apion.  VI.  5,  1,  &c.  It  expresses  here  God's  long 
delay  of  punishment.  Long-suffering,  slowness  to  anger.  Not 
knowing,  i.  e.  not  regarding  or  considering  '  that  the  goodness 
of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance,'  i.  e.  is  designed  and  adapt- 
ed to  lead. 

(5)  But,  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  trea- 
surest  up  unto  thyself  wrath,  &c.  The  mercies  and  advantages 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  peculiar  forbearance  of  God  towards  them, 
so  far  from  being  an  evidence  that  God  would  ultimately 
spare  them,  would,  by  being  abused,  greatly  aggravate  their 
condemnation.  "  Jifter  thy  hardness,  &c."  i.  e. '  through,  or  on 
account  of  thy  hard  and  impenitent  heart;'  see  Eph.  1 :  5,  7. 
3:  3,  &c.  The  word  rendered  to  treasure,  is  used  not  only  in 
reference  to  the  hoarding  up  of  things  which  are  considered 
valuable,  but  also  in  the  sense  of  accumulating  or  increasing 
ones  stock  of  any  thing  good  or  bad;  see  Amos  3:  10.  "  Trea- 
surest  up  unto  thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath;"  lite- 
rally in  the  day,  i,  e.  upon  the  day;  'wrath  on  that  day  of 

9 


66  ROMANS  2:  1—16. 

wrath;'  see  v.  16.  The  abuse  of  God's  mercies  will  cause  an 
accumulation  of  the  grounds  of  punishment  on  the  day  of 
judgment.  This  day  is  often  called  the  day  of  wrath;  the  day 
of  vengeance,  because  then  shall  the  wrath  of  God  be  most  con- 
spicuously displayed.  "  That  day  is  a  day  of  wrath,  a  day  of 
trouble  and  distress,  a  day  of  wasteness  and  desolation,  a  day  of 
darkness  and  gloominess,  a  day  of  clouds  and  thick  darkness," 
Zeph.  1:  15. 

Instead  of  the  reading,  "and  of  the  revelation  of  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God,"  many  MSS.,  several  of  the  ancient  versions 
and  fathers,  insert  the  conjunction,  and  read,  '  on  the  day  of 
wrath,  and  of  the  revelation,  and  of  the  righteous  judgment  of 
God.'  This  method  is  adopted  by  Mill,  Wetstein,  Knapp,  &c. 
Lachmann  gives  the  common  reading.  If  the  former  method 
be  preferred,  'the  day  of  revelation'  would  of  course  mean  'the 
day  of  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,'  who  is  to  come  to  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness.  This  is  the  day  on  which  God's 
displeasure  against  all  "  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness,"  by 
whomsoever  committed,  shall  be  most  signally  displayed;  and 
when  God's  righteous  judgment,  and  the  fact  that  it  is  righteous, 
shall  be  most  clearly  revealed.  These  verses,  therefore,  con- 
tain a  third  important  principle  laid  down  by  the  apostle.  The 
goodness  of  God  can  never  secure  impunity  to  sinners;  and  its 
abuse  will  be  sure  to  aggravate  their  guilt  and  punishment. 

(6)  Who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds. 
In  this  and  the  following  verses,  to  the  1 1th,  the  important  truth 
is  taught,  that  the  ground  of  the  judgment  of  God  is  the  works 
of  men,  not  their  relations  or  professions.  Stress  must  be  laid 
upon  both  members  of  the  verse;  God  will  render  to  every  one, 
Jew  as  well  as  Gentile,  according  to  his  tvorks,  in  opposition 
to  any  other  ground  of  judgment. 

(7)  To  them,  who,  hy  'patient  continuance  in  well  doing, 
seek  for  glory  and  honour  and  imniortality,  eternal  life. 
The  principle  which  is  stated  generally  in  the  preceding  verse, 
is  applied  to  the  two  great  classes  of  men  in  this  and  the  one 
following.  '  God  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
deeds;  to  the  good  he  will  render  life;  to  the  wicked  tribula- 
tion and  anguish.'  This  verse  contains  the  description  of  the 
character  and  reward  of  the  righteous.  They  are  those  whose 
affections  and  objects  of  pursuit  are  in  heaven,  "  who  seek  glory 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  67 

and  honour  and  immortality;"  and  who  seek  these  things  'by 
well  doing,'  by  the  persevering  performance  of  all  duty.  To 
such,  God  will  render  eternal  life.  It  is  not  to  the  Jew  as  Jew, 
nor  to  the  Gentile  as  Gentile,  any  more  than  it  is  to  the  Catholic, 
the  Episcopalian,  or  the  Presbyterian,  as  such,  but  to  the  good 
as  good,  whether  belonging  to  one  class  or  the  other,  that  eter- 
nal life  is  to  be  awarded. 

The  word  rendered  jjatient  continuance,  means  often  pa- 
tience under  afflictions,  and  also  constancy,  perseverance. 
Luke  8:  15,  "who  bring  forth  fruit  with  constancy;"  see  1  Thess. 
1:  3,  the  phrase  "constancy  of  hope,"  for  perseverance  in 
hope;  so  in  this  verse  "  constancy  of  good  works,"  means  con- 
stancy in  the  performance  of  good  works;  which  is  the  meaning 
which  our  translation  so  well  expresses.  Glory,  honour  and 
immortality,  i.  e.  a  glorious  and  honourable  immortality,  though 
the  idea  is  much  more  forcibly  expressed  by  the  words  as  they 
stand  in  our  version. 

(8)  But  unto  them  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey 
the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  wrath. 
Here  the  apostle  describes  the  character  and  reward  of  the 
wicked.  They  are  contentious  and  disobedient;  and  their 
recompense  is  indignation  and  wrath.  The  sense  of  this  verse 
is  perfectly  plain,  although  the  construction  in  the  original  is 
not  quite  regular.  The  sentence,  as  connected  with  the  pre- 
ceding, would  naturally  be  constructed  thus,  '  but  to  the  conten- 
tious (God  will  render)  indignation  and  wrath.'  As  it  stands, 
it  must  be  translated,  '  to  the  contentious,  indignation  and  wrath 
shall  be  rendered;'  which  mode  of  construction  is  continued 
through  the  following  verse.  The  phrase  rendered  those  who 
are  contentious,  literally  is  those  who  are  of  contention;  as 
'those  who  are  of  faith,'  for  believers;  'those  who  are  of  cir- 
cumcision,' for  the  circumcised.  Acts  10:  45.  Gal.  3:  7.  Tit.  2: 
8;  see  Phil.  1:  16,  17.  The  word  for  contention,  and  the 
corresponding  verb,  are  used  frequently  in  reference  specially 
to  contending  with  any  one  in  the  sense  of  resisting  his  authority. 
1  Sam.  12:  14,  15,  "and  not  rebel  (Greek  contend)  against  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord;"  Deut.  21:  20,  "  this  our  son  is 
stubborn  and  rebellious  (contentious),  he  will  not  obey  our 
voice."  So,  in  this  case,  the  contentious  are  the  rebellious, 
those  who  do  not  obev  God  or  the  truth.      The  truth,  i.  e.  true 


68  ROMANS  2:  1—16. 

religion,  the  true  standard  of  moral  and  religious  duty;  see  ch. 
1:18.  But  obey  unrighteousness.  Instead  of  obeying  truth 
and  holiness,  they  yield  obedience  to  sin,  unrighteousness  being 
obviously  taken  in  a  wide  sense  for  all  that  is  morally  wrong. 
Indignation  and  wrath.,  i,  e.  the  greatest  wrath.  The  former 
of  the  Greek  words  here  used,  according  to  Ammonius,  as 
quoted  by  Wetstein,  expresses  sudden  or  temporary  passion, 
and  the  latter  more  permanent  anger.  According  to  Eustathius, 
the  former  refers  to  the  internal  emotion,  the  latter  to  the  out- 
ward expression  of  it.  The  words  are  here  to  be  understood 
metonymically  for  the  effects  of  indignation  and  wratli,  that  is, 
severe  punishment.     And  this  is  explained  in  the  next  verse. 

(9)  Trihulation  and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of  onan 
that  doeth  evil,  &c.  Intensity,  as  is  obvious,  is  expressed  by 
the  use  of  these  nearly  synonymous  words,  tribulation  and  an- 
guish. Every  soul  of  man,  a  common  biblical  expression.  Acts 
2:  41.  Num.  19:  11.  The  Greek  and  Hebrew  words  for  sold 
are  familiarly  used  for  person;  '  Let  every  soul,'  i.  e,  every 
'person,'  ch,  13:  1,  7b  the  Jew  first  and  also  the  Gentile. 
It  becomes  now  apparent,  that  the  apostle,  in  laying  down  these 
general  principles  of  justice,  by  which  the  dealings  of  God  are 
to  be  regulated,  had  the  Jew  specially  in  view.  God,  he  says, 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works;  to  the  good 
eternal  life,  to  the  evil  tribulation  and  anguish.  And  lest  the 
every  man  sliould  fail  to  arre.st  attention,  Paul  says  expressly, 
that  the  Jew  as  well  as  the  Gentile  is  tints  to  be  judged.  The 
word  first,  here,  may  express  either  order  or  ])re-eminence. 
According  to  the  former  view,  the  meaning  is,  '  This  judgment 
shall  begin  with  the  Jew,  and  be  extended  to  the  Gentiles;'  so 
Calvin*  and  others;  see  ch.  1 :  16.  According  to  the  other, '  The 
Jew  shall  not  only  be  punished  as  well  as  others,  but,  having 
been  more  highly  favoured,  his  punishment  shall  be  more  se- 
vere.' In  like  manner,  if  the  Jew  is  faithful,  his  reward  will 
be  the  greater,  as  is  intimated  in  the  next  verse,  "The  Jew 
hrst,''  is,  therefore,  equivalent  with  '  the  .lew  especially.'  As 
both  ideas  are  correct,  both  may  have  been  intended  by  the 
apostle. 

*  Haec  universalis  est  divini  jiulicii  lex,  quae  a  Judaeis  ineipiet,  et  coniprehen- 
dct  totuin  orbcm. 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  69 

(10)  But  glory,  honour  and  peace  to  every  man  that 
tDorketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Gentile.  This 
verse  is  just  the  converse  of  the  preceding.  These  verses  state 
that,  with  regard  to  all  men,  the  judgment  of  God  is  determined 
by  their  works.  This  is  the  ground  of  decision  with  respect 
to  all,  because  God  is  perfectly  impartial. 

(11)  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God.  The 
word  rendered  respect  of  persons,  and  its  cognates.  Acts  10: 
34.  James  2:  9,  are  peculiar  to  the  Hellenistic  or  Jewish  Greek. 
They  are  derived  from  the  phrase  frequently  occurring  in  the 
Old  Testament,  to  accept  the  face  (i.  e.  the  person),  in  the  sense 
of  showing  favour.  This  phrase  is  often  used  in  a  good  sense. 
Gen.  19:  21,  '•  See  I  have  accepted  thee,"  (i.  e.  thy  face).  Job. 
42:  8.  So  'accepted  or  lifted  up  efface,'  means  one  honoured 
or  favoured,  2  Kings  5:  1.  Is.  3:  3,  &c.  Most  frequently,  and 
especially  when  spoken  of  judges,  it  is  used  in  a  bad  sense. 
Levit.  19:  15,  "  Thou  shalt  not  accept  the  person  of  the  poor," 
Prov.  24:  23,  &c.  So  in  the  New  Testament,  uniformly  in  the 
sense  of  improper  partiality,  Eph.  6:  9.  Col.  3:  25.  James  2:  1. 
This  verse  then  contains  the  sentiment  which  is  at  the  founda- 
tion of  the  declaration  of  the  preceding  verses.  The  Jews  and 
Gentiles  shall  be  treated  on  precisely  the  same  principles,  be- 
cause God  is  perfectly  impartial.  There  is  no  respect  of  per- 
sons with  him. 

(12)  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law,  shall  perish 
loithout  law;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned,  in  the  laiv,  shall 
be  judged  by  the  law.  In  tlie  preceding  verse  it  was  stated 
that  God  is  impartial  and  just  in  all  his  judgments.  This  is 
confirmed,  not  only  by  the  previous  statement  that  he  would 
judge  every  man  according  to  his  works,  but  also  by  the  exhi- 
bition of  the  important  principle  announced  in  this  verse.  Men 
are  to  be  judged  by  the  light  they  have  severally  enjoyed.  The 
ground  of  judgment  is  their  works,  the  standard  of  judgment 
their  knowledge,  ^s  many  as  have  sinned  without  lav),  that 
is,  as  appears  from  the  context,  without  a  special  revelation  of 
the  divine  will;  see  1  Cor.  9:  21.  The  law,  as  used  by  the 
apostle,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  means  the  rule  of  duty,  the 
will  of  God  as  revealed  for  our  obedience;  commonly,  how- 
ever, with  special  reference  to  the  revelation  made  in  the  scrip- 
tures.   This  is  evidently  the  case  here.     Shall  jJi^rish  without 


70  ROMANS  2:  1—1 G. 

late,  that  Is,  shall  he  punished  hy  a  different  standard,  to  wit, 
by  that  against  which  they  have  sinned.  The  word  rendered 
perish,  from  its  opposition  to  that  used  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse,  expresses  the  idea,  '  being  condemned,  shall  be  punished.' 
Jis  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law.  In  the  law,  i.  e.  subject 
to  the  law,  as  to  be  in  the  flesh,  ch.  7:  5.  8:  8,  &c.,  is  to  be 
subject  to  the  flesh;  to  be  in  siii  is  to  be  under  its  control;  see 
ch.  3:  19,  "  What  the  law  says,  it  says  to  those  who  are  under 
the  law,"  literally,  those  in  the  law,  as  here.  The  meaning, 
therefore,  obviously  is,  '  Those  who  are  under  a  special  revela- 
tion of  the  will  of  God,  and  have  sinned,  &c.  &c.,  shall  he 
judged  by  the  law.''  Judged,  i.  e.  condemned,  as  the  word  often 
means  (see  the  Lexicons),  and  as  the  context  here  requires.  By 
the  law,  i.  e.  by  means  of  the  law,  by  it  as  the  rule  or  stand- 
ard; see  the  same  preposition  so  used,  James  2:  12.  2  Cor.  8:  8. 
Paul  no  more  asserts  in  this  passage  that  all  who  have  no  reve- 
lation shall  perish,  than  he  does  that  all  who  have  a  revelation 
shall  be  condemned.  He  is  not  speaking  of  the  actual  destiny 
of  either  class,  but  of  the  rule  by  which  men  are  to  be  judged. 
(13)  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God, 
but  the  doers  of  the  laiv  shall  be  justified.  The  reason  is 
here  assigned  for  the  declaration  contained  in  the  last  clause  of 
the  preceding  verse,  'Those  who  arc  under  the  law  shall  be 
judged  by  it,  or  punished  according  to  it, /or  it  is  not  the  mere 
possession  of  the  law,  but  obedience  to  it,  which  is  of  avail 
before  God.'  The  hearers  of  the  law,  because  readers,  before 
the  multiplication  of  books  by  the  press,  were  comparatively 
few.  Hence,  it  was  by  hearing,  rather  than  by  reading,  that 
knowledge  was  obtained.  Thus  Polybius  says,  that  his  history 
was  suited  to  one  class  of  hearers  only  (Hist.  p.  752).  And 
Josephus  (Ant.  1:  2G)  says,  we  are  the  hearers  of  the  laws 
which  he  gave  us;  (see  Krebs  on  this  verse).  The  phrase  to  be 
just  before  God,  i.  e.  in  his  sight  or  estimation,  serves  to  ex- 
plain the  other  equivalent  term  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  shall  be 
justified.  Both  are  evidently  forensic  expressions,  and  mean, 
shall  be  regarded  and  treated  as  just  or  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
God.  The  apostle  has  evident  reference  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Jews,  that  being  a  Jew  was  enough  to  secure  admission  into 
heaven.  When  Paul  says  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified, 
he  is  of  course  not  to  be  understood  as  teaching,  contrary  to  his 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  71 

own  repeated  declarations  and  arguments,  that  men  arc  actually 
to  be  justified  by  obedience  to  the  law.  This  is  the  very  thing 
which  he  is  labouring  to  prove  impossible.  The  context  ren- 
ders his  meaning  plain.  He  is  speaking  not  of  the  method  of 
justification  available  for  sinners,  but  of  the  principles  on  which 
all  who  are  out  of  Christ  are  to  be  judged.  They  shall  be 
judged  impartially,  according  to  their  works,  and  agreeably  to 
their  knowledge  of  duty.  On  these  principles  no  flesh  living 
can  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  only  way,  as  he 
afterwards  teaches,  to  escape  their  application,  is  to  confide  in 
Christ,  in  virtue  of  whose  death,  God  can  be  just  and  yet  justify 
the  ungodly  who  believe  in  him. 

Though  this  verse,  with  the  14th  and  15th,  form  a  parenthesis, 
as  is  evident  from  the  16th,  which  requires  to  be  immediately 
connected  with  the  12th,  yet  they  are  intimately  related  to 
what  immediately  precedes.  The  13th  is  the  ground  of  what 
is  asserted  in  the  last  clause  of  the  12th,  viz.  that  those  who 
have  sinned  under  a  law  shall  be  condemned  by  it;  and  vs.  14, 
15,  are  the  ground  of  the  assertion,  that  those  who  have  sinned 
without  a  revelation,  shall  yet  be  punished,  because,  though 
they  have  no  law,  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves. 

(14)  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by 
nature  the  things  of  the  law,  &c.  The  word  for  does  not 
indicate  the  connexion  between  this  and  the  preceding,  but 
between  this  and  the  first  clause  of  the  12th,  as  just  stated. 
'  The  Gentiles  are  not  excusable,  although  not  amenable  to  the 
written  law  revealed  to  the  Jews,  since  they  have  a  law  written 
upon  their  hearts,  by  which  they  shall  be  judged,  and  according 
to  which  they  shall  be  punished.'  In  support  of  this  assertion, 
the  apostle  appeals  first  to  the  moral  acts  of  the  heathen,  as 
evincing  a  moral  sense;  and  secondly,  v.  15,  to  the  operations 
of  their  conscience.  Do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  laio.  To 
do  the  things  of  the  law,  is  to  do  what  the  law  prescribes. 
When  they  practise  any  of  the  virtues,  or  perform  any  moral 
acts,  these  acts  are  the  evidence  of  a  moral  sense;  they  show 
that  the  Gentiles  have  a  rule  of  right  and  wrong,  and  a  feeling 
of  obligation,  or,  in  other  words,  that  they  are  a  law  unto  them- 
selves. The  absence  of  all  moral  acts  in  the  lower  animals, 
shows  that  they  have  no  law  or  sense  of  moral  obligation.     But 


73  ROMANS  2:  1—1 G. 

men,  no  matter  how  diversified  may  be  their  circumstances,  all 
evince  that  they  are  under  a  moral  law. 

There  is  another  interpretation  of  the  phrase  to  do  the  things 
of  the  law,  according  to  which,  it  means  to  perform  the  office 
of  the  law,  to  prescribe  what  is  right  and  forbid  what  is  wrong. 
The  sense  of  the  whole  verse  would  then  be,  *  Since  the  Gen- 
tiles, though  destitute  of  a  revelation,  perform  the  office  of  a 
law,  by  commanding  and  forbidding  things  as  right  and  wrong, 
they  are  thus  a  law  unto  themselves.'*  But  this  interpretation 
attributes  an  unusual,  though  not  unauthorized  sense  to  the  phrase 
in  question;  and  is  not  so  agreeable  to  the  context.  '  To  do  the 
things  of  the  law '  is  to  be  '  doers  of  the  law,'  in  the  sense  of 
the  preceding  verse. 

Paul  says,  the  heathen  "  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law." 
The  word  rendered  nature,  often  signifies  the  natural  constitu- 
tion, innate  tendency  or  disposition.  Thus  Xenophon  (Cyrop. 
Lib.  2.  p.  42)  says,  '  all  animals  are  taught  by  nature  to  defend 
themselves,'  Jamblichus  (IV.  7)  speaks  of  '■  Demons  or  Deities, 
by  nature  wicked.'  Plutarch  says  (in  Dionys.  p.  176)  he  was 
'  by  nature  swift  to  anger.'  Josephus  (Ant.  7.  1)  says  of  David, 
'  he  was  by  nature  just  and  pious,'  &c.  See  Wetstein  on  Eph. 
2:  3,  and  Le  Clerc,  Ars  Critica,  P.  II.  sect.  1,  ch.  vii.;  compare 
Gal.  4:  8,  Eph.  2:  3,  &c.  This  expression  is  common  in  all 
languages,  and  is  used,  as  in  this  case  by  tlie  apostle,  to  refer 
us  to  a  source  of  acts  independent  of  external  causes  and  influ- 
ences. When  it  is  said  that  an  animal  is  cruel  by  nature,  it  is 
meant  that  its  cruelty  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  its  natural  con- 
stitution, and  not  by  imitation  or  example.  When,  therefore, 
the  Gentiles  are  said  '  to  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,' 
it  is  meant  that  they  have  not  been  taught  by  others.  It  is 
neither  by  instruction  nor  example,  but  by  their  own  innate 
sense  of  right  and  wrong,  that  they  are  directed.  Having  this 
natural  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  though  destitute  of  a  law  ex- 
ternally revealed,  they  arc  a  law  unto  themselves. 

(15)  Who  show  the  ivork  of  the  law  loritten  on  their 
hearts,  &c.  The  relative  pronouns,  when  used  in  this  way  at 
the  beginning  of  a  clause,  are  often  intended  to  introduce  a  rea- 
son for  a  j)receding  declaration.     So   liere,  the  Gentiles  are  a 

*  Honesta  jubeant,  turjua  prolubcaiil. — liiZA. 


ROMANS  2:  1—16.  73 

law  unto  themselves,  because  they  show  the  work  of  the  law, 
&c.;  see  ch.  1:  25.  2  Cor.  S:  10,  &c.  The  expression  work  of 
the  law,  may  either  mean  '  the  effect  of  the  law,'  viz.  a  know- 
ledge of  duty;  or  it  may  be  a  mere  paraphrase  for  the  law  itself. 
The  former  view  is  adopted  by  Grotius,  who  explains  it  as 
*  that  which  the  law  effects  in  the  Jews,  that  is,  a  knowledge  of 
right  and  wrong.'  Reference  is  made  to  similar  expressions, 
as  in  Aristotle  (Rhet.  1,  15,  6),  'to  do  the  work  of  the  law,'  is 
to  perform  its  office;  see  2  Tim.  4:5.  It  may,  however,  be  un- 
derstood as  the  law  itself,  as  in  Eph.  4:  12,  "  work  of  the  min- 
istry" may  be  the  ministry  itself;  and  1  Thess.  1 :  3,  "  work  of 
faith,"  faith  itself;  though  in  neither  of  these  cases  is  the  word 
ivork  strictly  redundant.  Paul  says  the  Gentiles  show  that  this 
law  is  written  on  their  hearts  by  their  actions,  as  stated  in  the 
previous  verse. 

There  is  another  source  of  proof  as  to  the  existence  of  this 
internal  law,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their 
thoughts  the  mean  while  accusing,  or  else  excusing  one  ano- 
ther. The  former  of  these  clauses  may  mean  either  '  their  con- 
science bearing  witness  to  this  law  written  in  their  hearts,  i.  e. 
assenting  to  it,  and  confirming  it;'  or,  what  is  better  suited  to 
the  force  of  the  word,  '  their  conscience  bears  the  same  testi- 
mony with  their  acts;  it  joins  to  prove  that  they  are  a  law  unto 
themselves.'  Conscience  is  then  obviously  put  for  its  exer- 
cises. Paul  appeals  both  to  the  conduct  and  inward  experience 
of  the  Gentiles  in  proof  of  his  position,  that  they  are  not  des- 
titute of  a  rule  of  duty. 

The  other  clause  of  this  verse  is  very  variously  explained. 
The  word  rendered  in  the  mean  while,  is  sometimes  an  adverb, 
and  sometimes  a  preposition.  Our  translators  take  it  here  as 
the  former.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Their  conscience,  and  the7i 
their  thoughts  or  moral  judgments  of  approval  or  disapproval;' 
or  '  their  conscience  bears  witness,  and  hereafter  their  thoughts 
(principles)  shall  approve  or  condemn  them.'  But  the  word  is 
so  intimately  connected  with  the  genitive  which  follows,  that 
it  seems  much  more  natural  to  take  it  as  a  preposition;  as  in 
Matt.  18:15,"  Tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone." 
Acts  15:  9,  "And  put  no  difference  between  us  and  them," 
&c.  '  Their  thoughts  between  themselves,  accusing  or  ex- 
cusing;' that  is,  '  their  moral  judgments  alternately  approving 

10 


74  ROMANS  2:  1—16. 

or  condemning.'*  This  clause  may  be  considered  as  merely  an 
amplification  of  the  previous  one,  so  that  the  testimony  of  con- 
science is  made  to  consist  in  these  approving  and  disapproving 
judgments;  or  it  may  be  considered  as  co-ordinate  with  it,  and 
as  containing  another  proof  of  the  apostle's  general  position, 
that  the  Gentiles  are  a  law  unto  themselves.  There  are,  then, 
three  arguments  presented  in  fiivour  of  this  position,  the  moral 
conduct  of  the  heathen,  their  general  moral  sense,  and  these 
special  acts  of  self-approbation  and  self-accusing.  The  use  of 
the  word  and,  between  the  second  and  third  clauses,  is  rather 
in  favour  of  this  latter  view.  Many  interesting  passages  are 
quoted  on  this  verse  from  the  ancient  writers,  by  Wetstein  and 
Grotius,  strikingly  illustrating  the  statement  of  the  apostle,  and 
showing  how  fully  the  heathen  were  conscious  that  they  had 
the  law  of  God  written  upon  their  hearts. 

(16)  In  the  day  that  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men, 
by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  gospel.  Calvin  places  only 
a  comma  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse,  and  connects  this 
with  it,  '  Their  thoughts  accusing  or  acquitting  them  on  that 
day,  in  which  God  shall  judge,'  &c.  Not,  as  he  remarks,  that 
conscience  is  then  first  to  assume  its  office,  but  it  will  then  be 
confirmed,  &c.  But  this  mode  of  connecting  the  passage  seems 
inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the  14th  and  15th  verses.  They 
have  not  so  much  reference  to  the  future  judgment,  as  to  the 
establishment  of  the  point  that  the  Gentiles  have  a  law  written 
on  their  hearts.  Bengel  connects  this  verse  with  the  beginning 
of  the  15th,  '  Which  show,  in  that  day,  that  they  have  a  law.' 
But  it  is  evident  that  this  construction  is  forced,  as  too  much 
intervenes  between  the  verb  shoiu  and  this  clause;  and  Paul 
would  most  probably  have  used  the  future  form,  and  said,  'They 
shall  show  hereafter,  in  that  day,'  &c.  There  seems  no  suffi- 
cient reason  to  depart  from  the  common  mode  of  explanation. 
Verses  13,  14,  15,  although  intimately  related  to  the  12th,  are 
yet  evidently  a  parenthesis.  Paul  had  said  that  those  who  had 
no  law  should  be  punished  without  reference  to  the  written  law, 
and  that  those  who  were  subject  to  such  a  law  should  l)e  judged 
by  it,  V.  12.  He  now  adds,  v.  16,  that  this  is  to  be  done  on  the 
last  day,  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men,  &c. 

•   Cogitationilms  inter  sc  accusantibiis.  aiit  etiam  cxoiisaiitihus. — Calvix.    Und 
die  Gcdankcn  die  sich  untcr  oinandcr  anklagcn  odcr  ciitschuldigra. — Litmer. 


ROMANS  2:  1—1 G.  75 

The  secrets  of  men,  not  their  works  of  parade,  clone  to  be  seen 
and  admired,  but  those  hidden  deeds  of  heart  and  life,  which 
form  the  true  criterion  of  character.  Thus  simply  does  he  de- 
scribe the  great  day,  the  day  of  judgment.  This  judgment 
shall  be  conducted  by  Jesus  Christ,  agreeably  to  our  Saviour's 
own  declaration,  "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  com- 
mitted all  judgment  unto  the  Son;"  see  Acts  17:  31.  The 
fact  that  there  is  to  be  such  a  day  of  trial,  and  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  to  be  the  judge,  is  part  of  the  revelation  contained  in  the 
gospel.  Paul  therefore  adds,  according  to  my  gospel,  which 
of  course  cannot  mean  that  all  men  are  to  be  judged  by  the  gos- 
pel, whether  they  have  heard  it  or  not.  This  would  be  in  di- 
rect contradiction  to  the  principle  which  he  had  just  been  esta- 
blishing, that  men  are  to  be  judged  by  the  light  they  severally 
possess.  The  meaning  is,  obviously,  that  the  fact  of  a  final  and 
righteous  judgment,  is  part  of  the  revelation  of  the  gospel. 

Such  then  are  the  principles  on  which  Paul  assures  us  that 
all  men  are  to  be  judged.  They  commend  themselves  irresisti- 
bly to  every  man's  conscience  as  soon  as  they  are  announced, 
and  yet  every  false  hope  of  heaven  is  founded  on  their  denial 
or  neglect.  It  may  be  proper  to  repeat  them,  that  it  may  be 
seen  how  obviously  the  hopes  of  the  Jews,  to  which  Paul,  from 
V.  17  onward,  applies  them,  are  at  variance  with  them.  1.  He 
who  condemns  in  others  what  he  does  himself,  ipso  facto  con- 
demns himself.  2.  God's  judgments  are  according  to  the  real 
character  of  men.  3.  The  goodness  of  God,  being  designed  to 
lead  us  to  repentance,  is  no  proof  that  he  will  not  punish  sin. 
The  perversion  of  that  goodness  will  increase  our  guilt,  and 
aggravate  our  condemnation.  4.  God  will  judge  every  man 
according  to  his  works,  not  according  to  his  professions,  his 
ecclesiastical  connexions  or  relations.  5.  Men  shall  be  judged 
by  the  knowledge  of  duty  which  they  severally  possess.  God 
is  therefore  perfectly  impartial.  These  are  the  principles  on 
which  men  are  to  be  tried,  in  the  last  day,  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
those  who  expect  to  be  dealt  with  on  any  other  plan,  will  be 
dreadfully  disappointed. 

Doctrines. 
1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is,  that  God  is  just. 
His  judgments    are    infinitely  removed  above  all   those    dis- 


76  ROMANS  2:  1—1 G. 

turbing  causes  of  ignorance  and  partiality,  by  which  the  deci- 
sions of  men  are  perverted,  vs.  1,  16. 

2.  The  refuge  which  men  are  always  disposed  to  seek  in 
their  supposed  advantages  of  ecclesiastical  connexion,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  true  church,  &c.  &c.,  is  a  vain  refuge.  God  deals 
with  men  according  to  their  real  character,  vs.  2,  3, 

3.  The  goodness  of  God  has  both  the  design  and  tendency 
to  lead  men  to  repentance.  If  it  fails,  the  fault  must  be  their 
own,  V.  4. 

4.  It  is  a  sreat  abuse  of  the  divine  goodness  and  forbearance 
to  derive  encouragement  from  them  to  continue  in  sin.  Such 
conduct  will  certainly  aggravate  our  condemnation,  vs.  3 — 5. 

5.  None  but  the  truly  good,  no  inatter  what  the  professions, 
connexions  or  expectations  of  others  may  be,  will  be  saved; 
and  none  but  the  truly  wicked,  whether  Gentile  or  Jew,  Chris- 
tian or  heathen  will  be  lost,  vs.  6 — 10. 

6.  The  goodness,  which  the  scriptures  approve,  consists,  in  a 
great  degree,  in  the  pursuit  of  heavenly  things;  it  is  a  seeking 
after  glory,  honour  and  immortality,  by  a  persevering  continu- 
ance in  well-doing.  It  is  the  pursuit  of  the  true  end  of  our 
being,  by  the  proper  means,  v.  7. 

7.  The  responsibility  of  men  being  very  different  in  this 
world,  their  rewards  and  punishment  will,  in  all  probability,  be 
very  different  in  the  next.  Those  who  knew  not  their  Lord's 
w^ill  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.  And  tliose  who  are  faithful 
in  the  use  of  ten  talents  shall  be  made  rulers  over  ten  cities, 
vs.  9,  10. 

6.  The  heathen  are  not  to  be  judged  by  a  revelation  of  which 
they  never  heard.  But  as  they  enjoy  a  revelation  of  the  divine 
character  in  the  works  of  creation,  ch.  1:19,  20,  and  of  the  rule 
of  duty  in  their  own  hearts,  vs.  14,  15,  they  are  inexcusaJjle. 
They  can  no  more  abide  the  test  by  which  they  arc  to  be  tried, 
than  we  can  stand  the  application  of  the  severer  rule  by  which 
we  are  to  be  judged.  Both  classes,  therefore,  need  a  Saviour, 
V.  12. 

9.  The  moral  sense  is  an  original  part  of  our  constitution, 
and  not  the  result  of  education,  v.  14. 

10.  Jesus  Clu'ist,  who  is  to  sit  in  judgment  n])(jn  tlio  secrets 
of  all  men,  must  be  possessed  of  infmitc  knowledge,  and  there- 
fore be  divine,  v.  16. 


ROMANS  2:  17— 29,  77 

Remarks. 

1.  The  deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart  is  strikingly  ex- 
hibited in  the  different  judgments  which  men  pass  upon  them- 
selves and  others;  condemning  in  others  what  they  excuse  in 
themselves.  And  it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  most 
censorious  are  the  most  criminal,  vs.  1,  3. 

2.  How  does  the  goodness  of  God  affect  us?  If  it  does  not 
lead  us  to  repentance,  it  will  harden  our  hearts  and  aggravate 
our  condemnation,  vs.  4,  5. 

3.  Genuine  repentance  is  produced  by  discoveries  of  God's 
mercy,  legal  repentance  by  fear  of  his  justice,  v.  4. 

4.  Any  doctrine  which  tends  to  produce  security  in  sin,  must 
be  false.  The  proper  effect  of  the  enjoyment  of  peculiar 
advantages  is  to  increase  our  sense  of  responsibility,  and  our 
gratitude  to  God,  and  not  to  make  us  suppose  that  we  are  his 
special  favourites.     God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  vs.  3 — 10. 

5.  How  vain  the  hopes  of  future  blessedness,  indulged  by  the 
immoral,  founded  upon  the  expectation  either  that  God  will  not 
deal  with  them  according  to  their  works,  or  that  the  secrets  of 
their  hearts  will  not  be  discovered!  vs.  6 — 10,  16. 

6.  If  God  is  a  just  God,  his  wrath  is  not  to  be  escaped  by 
evasions,  but  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment.  If  we  have 
no  righteousness  of  our  own,  we  must  seek  that  of  the  Saviour, 
vs.  1—16. 

7.  He  who  died  for  the  sins  of  men  is  to  sit  in  judgment 
upon  sinners.  How  dreadful  for  those  wdio  reject  his  atone- 
ment !  How  delightful  for  those  who  confide  in  his  meJiit ! 
v.  16. 


CHAP.  2:  17—29. 
Analysis. 
This  section  consists  properly  of  two  parts.  The  first,  vs. 
17 — 24,  contains  an  application  of  the  principles,  laid  down  in 
the  former  section,  to  the  case  of  the  Jews.  The  second,  vs. 
25 — 29,  is  an  exhibition  of  the  nature  and  design  of  circum- 
cision. The  principal  grounds  of  dependence  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews,  were,  1.  Their  covenant  relation  to  God.  2.  Their 
superior  advantages  as  to  divine  knowledge.      .".  Their  circum- 


78  ROMANS  2:  17—2,9. 

cision.  Now  if  it  is  true  that  God  will  judge  every  man,  Jew 
or  Gentile,  according  to  his  works,  and  by  the  law  which  he 
has  enjoyed,  what  will  it  avail  any  to  say.  We  are  Jews,  we 
have  the  law,  V.  17;  we  have  superior  knowledge,  v.  18;  we 
can  act  as  guides  and  instructors  to  others,  v.  19  ?  This  may  all 
be  very  true,  but  are  you  less  a  thief,  merely  because  you 
condemn  stealing?  less  an  adulterer,  because  you  condemn 
adultery  ?  or  less  a  blasphemer,  because  you  abhor  sacrilege  ? 
vs.  21,  22.  This  superior  knowledge,  instead  of  extenuating, 
only  aggravates  your  guilt.  While  boasting  of  your  advantages, 
you,  by  your  sins,  bring  a  reproach  on  God,  vs.  23,  24.  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  principles  of  justice,  therefore,  your  con- 
demnation will  be  no  less  certain,  and  far  more  severe  than  that 
of  the  Gentiles.  As  to  circumcision,  to  which  the  Jews  attached 
so  much  importance,  the  apostle  shows  that  it  could  avail 
nothing,  except  on  condition  of  obedience  to  the  law  or  covenant 
to  which  it  belonged,  v.  25.  If  the  law  be  broken,  circumcision 
is  worthless,  v.  25,  latter  clause.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
law  is  obeyed,  the  want  of  circumcision  will  not  prevent  a 
blessing,  v.  26.  More  than  this,  if  those  less  favourably  situated 
than  the  Jews,  are  found  obedient,  they  will  rise  up  in  judgment 
against  the  disobedient,  though  favoured,  people  of  God,  v.  27. 
All  this  proves  that  an  external  rite  can,  in  itself,  have  no  saving 
power;  because  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  requires  and  regards 
spiritual  obedience  alone.  This  principle  is  stated,  first  nega- 
tively, he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  such  in  jirofession  merely,  v,  29, 
and  then  affirmatively,  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly,  v.  29. 

Commentary. 
(17)  Behold*  thon  art  a  Jeio,  and  resteaf  in  the  laiv,  and 
makesl  thy  boast  of  God.     The  main  ground  of  confidence  in 

•  Instead  of  the  common  reading  Wi,  the  MSS.  D.  G.  1,  8,  10,  14,  31,  and  seve- 
ral others,  read  s\  6L  This  reading  has  the  support  of  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethi- 
opic  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  of  several  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.  It  is  the 
more  difficult  reading  of  the  two.  It  is  adopted  by  Bengcl,  Griesbach,  Knapp  and 
Lachmann.  According  to  this  reading,  the  construction  of  the  wliole  passage  is 
irregular.  This  verse  would  be  the  protasis  of  a  sentence,  to  wliich  no  apodosis 
follows.  See  v.  12  of  ch.  .5.  2  Peter  2:4.  '  But  if  thou  art  a  Jew,  thou  shouldst 
act  accordingly;'  or  '  If  a  Jew,  dost  thou  steal,  &c.  &c.'  The  21st  verse  is,  as  to 
the  sense,  though  not  grammatically,  the  apodosis.  See  Wineh's  Grammatik, 
p.  442. 


ROMANS  2:  17—29.  79 

the  Jew  was,  that  he  was  one  of  the  covenant  people  of  God. 
To  this,  therefore,  Paul  first  refers.  Thou  art  called  a  Jew, 
i.  e.  one  of  the  people  of  God.  The  word  Jew  is  evidently 
taken  here  in  its  religious,  rather  than  its  civil  or  national  sense; 
it  expresses  the  relation  of  the  people  to  God  rather  than  to 
other  nations.  A  Jew,  therefore,  in  opposition  to  a  Gentile, 
was  a  member  of  the  true  church,  a  child  of  Abraham,  &c.  In 
this  sense  the  word  occurs  again  in  vs.  28,  29.  Rev.  2:  9,  "  I 
know  the  blasphemy  of  those  who  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are 
not."  It  is  by  many  supposed  that  reference  is  here  intended 
to  the  etymology  of  the  name  Judah  and  Jew,  which  is  under- 
stood as  meaning  a  praiser  of  God.  So  Philo  (De  Allegoriis,  I. 
p.  55)  says,  'Judah  means  one  who  confesses  or  praises;'  and  (De 
Plantatione,  p.  233)  he  says,  '  He  is  called  Judah,  which,  inter- 
preted, is  confession  to  God;'  see  Grotius.  There  is  probably 
no  allusion  to  the  mere  etymological  signification  of  the  name. 

Restest  in  the  laiv,  i.  e.  reclinest  upon  it  as  a  ground  of  con- 
fidence. The  same  word  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  the 
strikingly  analogous  passage  in  Micah  3:  11,  "  The  heads  there- 
of judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  the 
prophets  thereof  divine  for  money;  yet  will  they  lean  upon  the 
Lord,  and  say,  Is  not  the  Lord  among  us?  None  evil  can  come 
upon  us."  This  is  precisely  the  spirit  which  Paul  reproves,  a 
reliance  on  external  advantages,  connected  with  security  in  sin. 
The  law  here  means  the  whole  civil  and  religious  polity  of  the 
Jews;  the  Mosaic  system,  the  possession  of  which  made  such  a 
distinction  between  them  and  other  nations,  and  conferred  upon 
them  such  exalted  privileges. 

^nd  makest  thy  boast  of  God.  The  words  which  are  thus 
correctly  rendered  here,  occur  in  a  very  different  sense  in  ch. 
5:  11,  where  they  are  translated  ive  joy  in  God.  The  word 
rendered  to  boast,  is  expressive  of  self-gratulation,  with  or 
without  sufficient  reason.  It  is  therefore  often  used  for  vain 
boasting.  Its  meaning  here  is  obvious.  The  Jews  considered 
that  they  had  reason  for  self-gratulation  and  exaltation  in  their 
peculiar  relation  to  God.  Their  boast  and  confidence  was  that 
he  was  their  God,  and  that  they  were  his  people. 

(18)  Andknowest  his  ivill,  and  approvest  the  things  jvhich 
are  most  excellent,  &c.  The  second  ground  of  confidence  was 
their  superior  knowledge.     The  Jews  not  only  supposed  them- 


80  ROMANS  2:  17— 29. 

selves  to  stand  in  a  more  favourable  relation  to  God  than  the 
Gentiles,  but  they  regarded  themselves  as  personally  greatly 
their  superiors;  having  better  knowledge  of  divine  things,  &.c. 
On  the  ground  of  this  superiority  they  expected  to  be  treated 
with  especial  favour  when  they  appeared  before  God.  To  this 
ground  of  confidence  the  apostle  now  refers.  Knowest  his  will, 
'  art  possessed  of  a  divine  revelation;'  or,  '  knowest  what  is 
pleasing  to  God.'  The  next  clause  may  be  rendered,  either 
thou  approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent;  or  thou 
discernest  {can  decide  about)  the  things  which  differ.  The 
usage  of  the  Greek  terms  admit  of  either  of  these  versions. 
The  context  is  in  favour  of  the  latter,  as  the  point  in  hand  is  the 
superior  knowledge  of  the  Jews,  by  which  they  Avere  able  to 
decide  questions  of  duty  which^  others  could  not,  and  hence 
thought  themselves  fit  to  be  their  guides  and  teachers.  The  same 
phrase  occurs  again,  Phil.  1:  10,  where  it  may  be  rendered  as 
here.  Paul  there  prays  that  Christians  may  abound  in  know- 
ledge and  judgment,  and  be  able  to  decide  what  ought  to  be 
done,  and  what  left  undone.  So  Calvin,  Beza,  Eisner  and  others 
explain  the  passage.  The  latter  quotes  the  interpretation  of 
Theodoret,  '  the  things  opposed  to  each  other,  righteousness  and 
unrighteousness;'  and  Theophylact's,  'what  ought  to  be  done, 
and  what  ought  not  to  be  done.'  The  other  view  is  adopted  by 
the  Vulgate,  Grotius  and  our  translators,  both  here  and  in  Phil. 
1:  10,  and  is,  perhaps,  the  more  commonly  received  of  the 
two.  The  source  of  this  superior  knowledge  was  the  word  of 
God;  hence,  Paul  adds,  "  being  instructed  out  of  the  law." 

(19,  20)  And  art  confident  that  tho^i  thyself  art  a  guide  to 
the  blind,  and  a  light  to  them  that  are  in  darkness,  &c.  What 
is  expressed  figuratively  in  this  verse,  is  expressed  literally  in 
the  one  that  follows — an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher 
of  babes.  There  is  no  trait  of  the  Jewish  character  more 
prominently  exhibited  than  their  self-confident  superiority  to 
others.  Hence  their  desire  to  make  proselytes,  their  endless 
inculcation  of  the  commands  of  men  for  the  doctrines  of  God, 
their  contempt  of  the  Gentiles,  &c.  &c.  Their  Rabbins  were 
in  the  habit  of  calling  themselves  '  the  light  of  the  world.' 
Which  hast  the  form  of  knowledge  and  truth  in  the  law. 
The  word  rendered /br/T^i,  means  the  external  shape  or  appear- 
ance of  a  thing;  2  Tim.  3:  5,  •■'  Having  the  form  of  godliness." 


ROMANS  2:  17— 29.  81 

It  also  signifies  a  just  representation,  and  then  a  rule.  The  idea 
is,  '  they  have  in  the  law  a  perfect  representation  of  what 
truth  and  duty  are/  or  '  a  perfect  rule  of  moral  truth.'*  The 
words  "  knowledge  and  truth,"  by  a  common  figure,  may  mean 
true  knowledge;  or  be  equivalent  with  knowledge  of  the 
truth. 

(21,22)  Thou  therefore  ivhich  teachest  another^  teachest 
thou  not  thyself?  thou  that  preachest  a  man  should  not  steal, 
dost  thou  steal?  &c.  For  the  connexion  of  this  verse  with 
the  17th,  see  the  note  on  that  passage.  We  have  here  the  ap- 
plication of  the  above  reasoning  to  the  hopes  of  the  Jews.  If 
men  are  to  be  judged  according  to  their  works,  those  who  do 
wickedly,  who  steal,  commit  adultery  and  sacrilege,  no  matter 
whether  they  are  called  Jews,  and  make  their  boast  in  God,  and 
are  instructed  out  of  the  law,  or  not,  will  assuredly  be  con- 
demned. It  is  evident  that  the  crimes  of  theft,  adultery  and 
sacrilege  are  here  specified,  not  as  crimes  which  all  the  Jews 
committed,  but  as  examples  merely.  '  If  you,  though  Jews,  do 
what  you  condemn  in  others,  you  will  not  escape  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God.  So  far  from  this,  your  superior  advantages 
will  increase  the  weight  of  your  condemnation.'  Paul  intended 
forcibly  to  assert  that  the  Jews  were  guilty  of  these  and  other 
crimes,  and  it  matters  little  whether  the  interrogative  or  affirma- 
tive form  of  address  be  adopted;  i.  e.  whether  we  read  '  Dost 
thou  steal.-*'  or  '  Thou  dost  steal,  dost  commit  adultery,  &c.'  It 
is  a  mere  matter  of  punctuation.  The  interrogation  gives  the 
assertion  rather  more  point.  It  has  been  questioned  whether 
the  apostle,  in  charging  the  Jews  with  sacrilege,  had  reference 
to  the  specific  crime  of  temple-robbery,  or  more  generally  to 
the  wicked  and  profane  abuse  and  perversion  of  sacred  things. 
Most  probably  to  the  latter,  because  there  is  no  historical  evi- 
dence of  temple-robbery  having  been  committed  by  them;  and 
because  the  prophets  represent  the  withholding  from  God  his 
due,  and  the  appropriation  of  sacred  things  to  a  common  use, 
as  a  robbery  of  God.  Malachi  3:  S,  ''Will  a  man  rob  God? 
Yet  ye  have  robbed  me.  But  ye  say.  Wherein  have  we  robbed 
thee.^    In  tithes  and  oflferings."     While  the  Jews,  therefore, 

*  Cicero  often  uses  the  phrases  forma  Iwiiesti,  boni,  veri;  and  artibua  iufor- 
mare  uetatein.    See  Grotius  on  this  verse. 

u 


82  ROMANS  2:  17—29. 

abhorred  idols,  which  was  one  form  of  showing  contempt  for 
God,  they  evinced,  without  compunction,  their  want  of  rever- 
ence for  the  divine  Being,  in  ways  scarcely  less  offensive.  That 
this  abhorrence  of  idolatry  was  characteristic  of  the  Jews  after 
the  captivity,  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  facts  in  their  history; 
and  it  is  as  great  now  as  at  any  former  period.  Tholuck  cites, 
as  a  striking  illustration  of  their  zeal  on  this  subject,  the  fact 
that  when  Pilate  was  about  to  introduce  into  Jerusalem  the 
likeness  of  the  Emperor  on  the  standards  of  the  soldiers,  they 
hastened  in  crowds  to  meet  him  at  Cesarea,  and  to  remonstrate 
with  him  on  the  subject.  For  several  days  they  received  no 
answer.  When  Pilate  himself  appeared,  he  threatened  them 
with  death,  if  they  did  not  withdraw.  But  they  threw  them- 
selves on  the  ground,  and  cried  they  would  rather  all  perish 
than  allow  the  images  to  enter  the  city;  Josephus,  Antiq.  L.  18. 
ch.  3,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.  L.  2.  ch.  9.  Yet  these  same  people, 
who  were  thus  fearful  of  the  semblance  of  idolatry,  could  rob 
God  by  perverting  to  their  own  use,  what  belonged  to  the  tem- 
ple; and  by  offering  the  torn  and  the  lame  and  the  sick  in  sacri- 
fice, Mai.  1:  13. 

(23,  24)  Thou  that  mukest  thy  boast  of  the  law,  through 
breaking  the  law,  dishonourest  thou  God?  &c.  Another 
striking  instance  of  their  not  acting  agreeably  to  their  advan- 
tages, while  making  a  boast  of  the  law,  and  of  their  peculiar 
relation  to  God,  as  their  God,  and  theirs  only;  instead  of  acting 
worthily  of  this  relation,  they  so  acted,  that  the  name  of  God 
was  every  day  blasphemed;  that  is,  the  Gentiles  were  con- 
stantly led  to  speak  and  think  evil  of  a  God,  whose  worship- 
pers were  so  wicked  as  the  Jews.  This  assertion  he  confirms 
by  the  declarations  of  their  own  prophets;  sec  Ezek.  36:  20,  23. 

(25)  For  circumcision  verily  profit  eth  if  thou  keep  the  law, 
&c.  It  had  obviously  been  impHed  in  the  previous  reasoning 
of  the  apostle,  that  the  Jews,  being  chargeable  with  the  sins 
just  mentioned,  could  not  escape  the  righteous  judgment  of 
God;  for  circumcision  is  of  no  account,  unless  the  law  be 
obeyed;  if  that  is  broken,  circumcision  is  uncircumcision.  The 
connexion  between  this  and  the  preceding  verses  is  thus  obvious. 
The  design  of  lliis  passage,  vs.  25 — 29,  therefore,  is  to  show  that 
circumcision  allbrded  no  security  to  the  Jews.  This  rite  was 
regarded  by  tiie  Hebrews,  and  is  considered  by  the  apostle  under 


ROMANS  2:  17—29.  83 

two  different  aspects.  First,  as  an  opus  operatum^  as  a  rite 
possessed  of  inherent  efficacy  or  merit  of  its  own ;  and,  secondly, 
as  a  sign  or  seal  of  God's  covenant.  In  the  former  view,  Paul 
here,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  (see  Gal.  6:15)  says,  "circumcision  is 
nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing."  In  the  latter,  it  had  its 
legitimate  and  important  value.  As  a  seal  it  was  attached,  in 
the  first  place,  to  the  national  covenant  between  God  and  the 
Jews.  It  was  a  sign  of  the  existence  of  that  covenant,  and  a 
pledge,  on  the  part  of  God,  that  he  would  fulfil  its  promises.  If 
any  Jew  fulfilled  his  part  of  that  covenant,  and  in  that  sense 
kept  the  law,  his  circumcision  would  profit  him;  it  would  se- 
cure to  him  all  the  blessings  of  Judaism.  But  it  was  also,  in 
the  second  place,  attached  to  the  spiritual  covenant  made  with 
Abraham.  "  It  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  i.  e.  was 
designed  as  an  assurance  that  he  was  regarded  as  righteous  on 
account  of  his  faith,  and  that  he  should  be  treated  accordingly. 
To  all  those  Jews  who  had  the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  thus  kept 
the  covenant,  or  law  of  justification,  established  with  him,  cir- 
cumcision was  in  like  manner  profitable.  It  was  the  visible 
sign  and  pledge  of  the  divine  favour.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
either  the  national  or  spiritual  covenant  was  broken,  circum- 
cision was  of  no  more  use  than  the  seal  of  a  contract  after  all  its 
binding  parts  had  been  obliterated.  In  other  words,  the  validity 
of  a  covenant  or  contract  depends  on  the  performance  of  its 
conditions,  not  on  the  mere  possession  of  its  seal.  Paul,  there- 
fore, tells  the  Jews  that  there  was  no  inherent  efficacy  in 
circumcision,  that  it  could  avail  them  nothing  unless  they 
obeyed  the  law;  if  they  were  transgressors  of  the  law,  as  he 
had  just  declared  them  to  be,  their  circumcision  was  made  un- 
circumcision. That  is,  it  would  do  them  no  good;  and  though 
of  the  number  of  the  people  of  God,  they  should  be  treated  as 
though  they  were  not. 

(26)  Therefore  if  the  uncircwnicision  keep  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  laiu,  shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted  far 
circuincision  ?  In  order  to  present  the  nature  of  this  rite  in  its 
true  light,  he  reverses  the  statement  of  the  previous  verse. 
Circumcision  cannot  profit  any  one  if  the  law  is  broken;  and 
the  want  of  it  cannot  invalidate  the  promise,  if  the  law  is  kept. 
In  other  words,  circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is 
nothing,  but  keeping  the  commandments  of  God.     The  rite, 


84  ROMANS  2:  17—29, 

in  itself  considered,  is  of  no  avail.  If  a  man  should  faithfully 
perform  all  the  conditions  of  a  contract,  the  absence  of  the  seal 
would  not,  in  the  judgment  of  equity,  invalidate  his  claim,  any 
more  than  the  possession  of  the  seal,  while  the  conditions  re- 
mained unperformed,  would  entitle  him  to  the  specified  reward. 

The  word  V7ich'cumcisi07i,  in  the  beginning  of  the  verse, 
obviously  means  an  uncircinncised  person,  by  a  common  me- 
tonymy, but,  in  the  latter  clause,  it  is  to  be  taken  literally.  The 
righteousness  of  the  law,  'the  prescriptions  of  the  law;'  its 
various  demands.  Paul  does  not  say  that  any  heathen  does  fully 
answer  the  demands  of  the  law,  the  case  is  merely  stated  hypo- 
thetically  to  show  the  little  weight  due  to  circumcision.  The 
last  clause,  his  tincircmncision  shall  be  counted  for  circtim- 
cision,  is  an  example  of  a  very  common  Hebrew  idiom;  ac- 
cording to  which  the  preposition  here  rendered  for,  is  placed 
after  verbs  signifying  to  be,  to  become,  or  to  be  regarded,  where, 
in  Greek,  the  nominative  would  be  used.  "  They  two  shall  be 
for  one  flesh,"  instead  of  one  flesh,  as  our  version  renders  it. 
Matt.  19:  5,  "  It  became  to  a  great  tree,"  for  '  it  waxed  a  great 
tree,'  Luke  13:  19;  compare  1  Sam.  1:  13,  "Eli  counted  her 
for  one  drunken,"  &c.  &c.  The  apostle's  meaning  is  obvious. 
'  The  one  shall  be  regarded  and  treated  as  though  it  were  the 
other.' 

(27)  t^nd  shall  not  uncirciimcisioyi,  7vhich  is  by  nature, 
judge  thee,  &c.  Calvin  and  others  m;ikc  tliis  verse  part  of  the 
interrogation  commenced  in  the  preceding,  and  not  a  distinct 
question  by  itself.  Either  mode  of  intei-j)retation  is  possible. 
As  pointed  and  understood  by  our  translators,  this  verse  ex- 
presses more  than  the  preceding  one.  The  obedient  Gentile 
would  not  only  be  accepted,  althougb  uncircumcised,  but  he 
would  rise  up  and  condemn  the  more  favoured  Jew.  JVhich 
is  by  nature,  i.  c.  which  is  natural.  The  interpretation  whicli 
Grotius,  who  is  followed  by  Ivoppe,  gives  of  this  clause,  it  ob- 
viously cannot  bear.  He  connects  the  words  by  nature  witli 
the  following  clause,  tluis,  '  if  it  fulfil  by  nature  (i.  e.  l)y  reason 
and  the  moral  sense)  the  law,  &.c.'  Jiut  the  j)osition  of  the 
words  renders  this  interpretation  impossible,  if  any  regard  is 
paid  to  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  sentence.  Judge  thee, 
i.  e.  condemn  thee,  as  this  word  is  often  used,  see  v.  1.  Ren- 
der thy  condemnation  and  its  justice  more  conspicuous.     As 


ROMANS  2:  17—29.  85 

the  men  of  Nineveh  and  the  Queen  of  the  south  are  to  rise  in 
judgment  against  the  neglecters  of  Christ  and  his  gospel  and 
condemn  them,  Matt.  12:  41,  42.  The  Jew  is  here  described 
as  one  '  who  by  the  letter  and  circumcision  transgresses  the 
law.'  The  word  for  letter  means  not  only  an  alphabetic  cha- 
racter, but  also  any  thing  written;  John  5:  7,  "  If  they  believe 
not  his  writings;"  2  Tim.  3:  15,  "  Thou  hast  known  the  sacred 
scriptures."  It  means  here  the  loritten  law,  see  v.  29,  and  ch, 
7:  6,  "Not  according  to  the  oldness  of  the  letter,"  i.  e.  the  old 
written  law;  2  Cor.  3:  G,  "  Hath  made  us  ministers,  not  of  the 
letter,  but  of  the  spirit,"  that  is,  '  not  of  the  written  law,  but 
of  the  spiritual  dispensation.'  The  preposition  rendered  here 
by,  "  By  the  letter  and  circumcision,"  may  often  be  rendered 
ivith,  and  should  be  so  translated  here;  '  Who  Avith  the  letter 
and  circumcision,'  that  is,  '  who,  although  possessed  of  the  let- 
ter, i.  e.  the  written  law,  and  circumcision,  art  a  transgressor  of 
the  law;'  see  ch.  4:  11.  Heb.  9:  14,  '  Who  ivith  an  eternal  Spi- 
rit, i.  e.  being  possessed  of  an  eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself 
unto  God;'  1  Cor.  14:  9.  2  Cor.  2:  4,  "  With  many  tears." 
The  preposition  in  question,  therefore,  is  often  used  to  indicate 
the  state,  condition  or  circumstances  in  which  any  person  or 
thing  is  placed,  as  2  Cor.  3:  11,  '  was  ivith  glory,'  i.  e.  glorious, 
and  2  Cor.  6:  7,  8;  see  Wahl,  p.  274.  The  words  "  letter  and 
circumcision"  might,  by  a  common  figure,  be  taken  to  mean 
literal  circumcision;  but  this  is,  in  the  first  place,  unnecessary, 
and,  in  the  second,  not  so  well  suited  to  the  context,  as  nothing 
is  said  here  of  a  spiritual  circumcision,  and  as  the  law  is  too 
prominent  a  point  in  tlie  advantages  of  the  Jcavs  to  allow  of 
the  term  which  expresses  it  here,  to  be  merged  in  a  mere  epi- 
thet. 

(28,  29)  Fo7'  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly,  nei- 
ther is  that  circumcision  ivhich  is  outward  in  the  Jlesh,  &e. 
These  verses  assign  the  reason  why  the  external  rite  of  circum- 
cision can  avail  so  little.  God  regards  the  heart,  and  not  tlic 
external  circumstances  of  men.  This  sentiment  is  expressed, 
first  negatively,  v.  28,  and  then  affirmatively,  v.  29.  The  word 
Jew  is  here,  as  in  v.  17,  to  be  taken  in  its  religious  sense.  He 
is  not  a  Jew,  or  a  child  of  God,  who  is  such  by  profession 
only,  or  in  external  appearance.  Neither  is  the  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh,  that  on  which  the  scriptures  lay 


86  ROMANS  2:  17— 29. 

so  much  stress,  as  when  it  is  said  "  I  will  circumcise  your  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  your  children,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God,"  Deut. 
30:  6.  The  sign  is  nothing  without  the  spiritual  blessing 
which  it  signifies.  But  he  is  a  Jew,  ivhich  is  one  inwardly. 
He  only  is  really  one  of  the  people  of  God,  who  is  such  in 
heart;  see  1  Peter  3:  4,  where  the  word,  whicli  properly  means 
hidden,  secret,  is  also  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  internal, 
inward.  And  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spi- 
rit, and  not  in  the  letter,  see  Deut.  10:  16.  The  words  iti 
the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter,  are  evidently  explanatory  of  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking;  but 
they  may  be  understood  variously.  In  the  spirit  may  mean 
spiritual,  as  relating  to  the  spirit  and  not  to  the  body,  and  in 
the  letter  would  then  mean  literal;  '  Circumcision  of  the  heart 
which  is  spiritual  and  not  literal.'  Or  m  the  spirit  may  be  ren- 
dered bi/  the  Spirit.  This  gives  a  better  sense,  '  Circumcision 
of  the  heart  wdiich  is  effected  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  made  after 
the  direction  of  the  written  law;'  compare  Col.  2:  11.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  the  word  rendered  letter,  retains  the  meaning 
it  has  in  the  preceding  verses.  The  general  sentiment,  how- 
ever, is,  in  either  case,  the  same. 

fVhose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God.  The  word  ivhose 
refers  to  the  Jew  just  described.  His  excellence  is  internal, 
seen  and  acknowledged  of  God:  not  such  as  falls  under  the  ob- 
servation of  men.* 

Doctrines. 

1.  Membership  in  the  true  church,  considered  as  a  visible 

society,  is  no  security  that  we  shall  o])tain  the  favour  of  God. 

The  Jews,  before  llic  advent,  were  membei-s  of  the  true  and 

only  cluDcli,  and  yet  Paul  teaches  they  were  not  on  that  account 

*  Many  Joclarations  might  lie  quotiul  from  Jewish  authors  to  show  that  some  of 
them  at  least  were  aware  of  the  little  value  of  the  mere  external  rite  of  eireumei- 
sion.  There  is  a  passage  from  R.  Lipman,  in  lihro  Nizzachon,  num.  21.  p.  19, 
whieh,  as  Hehoettgon  remarks,  he  almost  a])i)ears  to  have  borrowed  from  the  apostle. 
"  The  Christians  mock  us  by  saying,  Women,  who  eannot  be  eireumcised,  are  not 
to  be  regardiMl  as  Jews.  But  they  are  ignorant  that  faith  does  not  depend  on  eir- 
cumcision,  but  on  the  heart.  Circumcision  docs  not  render  him  a  Jew,  wlio  does 
not  truly  believe;  and  he  who  truly  believes  is  a  Jew,  although  he  is  not  circum- 
cised." And  in  the  'I'alnuul  (Tract  Nidda,  fol.  20,  2)  it  is  said,  "  The  Jew  is  seat- 
ed in  the  recesses  of  the  heart."     Sec  Schoettgem's  Horae  Hebraicae,  p.  .500. 


ROMANS  2:  17—29.  87 

the  more  acceptable  to  God.  Multitudes  of  Jewish  converts 
were  members  of  the  apostolic  church,  and  yet,  retaining  their 
former  doctrines  and  spirit,  were  in  the  gall  of  bitterness, 
V.  17. 

2.  Mere  knowledge  cannot  commend  us  to  God.  It  neither 
sanctifies  the  heart,  nor  of  itself  renders  men  more  useful. 
When  made  the  ground  of  confidence,  or  the  fuel  of  pride  and 
arrogance,  it  is  perverted  and  destructive,  vs.  18 — 20. 

3.  Superior  knowledge  enhances  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  increases 
the  certainty,  necessity  and  severity  of  punishment,  without  in 
itself  increasing  the  power  of  resistance.  It  is,  therefore,  a  great 
mistake  to  make  knowledge  our  sole  dependence  in  promoting 
the  moral  improvement  of  men,  vs.  IS — 20. 

4.  The  sins  of  the  professing  people  of  God  are  peculiarly 
offensive  to  him,  and  injurious  to  our  fellow  men,  vs.  22 — 24. 

5.  Here,  as  in  the  former  part  of  the  chapter,  the  leading 
idea  is,  that  God  is  just.  He  asks  not  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew 
or  a  Gentile,  a  Greek  or  Barbarian,  bond  or  free,  but  what  is 
his  character?     Does  he  do  good  or  evil?  vs.  17 — 24. 

6.  According  to  the  apostle,  the  true  idea  of  a  sacrament  is 
not  that  it  is  a  mystic  rite,  possessed  of  inherent  efficacy,  or 
conveying  grace  as  a  mere  opus  operatum;  but  that  it  is  a  seal 
and  sign,  designed  to  confirm  our  faith  in  the  validity  of  the 
covenant  to  which  it  is  attached;  and,  from  its  significant  cha- 
racter, to  present  and  illustrate  some  great  spiritual  truth,  v.  25. 

7.  All  hopes  are  vain  which  are  founded  on  a  participation 
of  the  sacraments  of  the  church,  even  when  they  are  of  divine 
appointment,  as  circumcision,  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper; 
much  more  when  they  are  of  human  invention,  as  penance,  and 
extreme  unction,  vs.  26,  27. 

8.  Religion  and  religious  services,  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
must  be  of  the  heart,  mere  external  homage  is  of  no  account, 
vs.  28,  29. 

Reonarks. 
1.  The  sins  and  refuges  of  men  are  alike  in  all  ages.  The 
Jew  expected  salvation  because  he  was  a  Jew,  so  does  the 
Catholic  because  he  is  a  Catholic,  the  Greek  because  he* is  a 
Greek,  and  so  of  others.  Were  it  ever  so  certain  that  the 
church  to  which  wc  belong  is  the  true,  apostolic,  universal 


88  ROMANS  2:  17—29. 

church,  it  remains  no  less  certain  that  without  holiness  no  man 
shall  see  God,  v.  17,  &c. 

2.  Having  superior  knowledge  should  make  us  anxious,  first, 
to  go  right  ourselves,  and  then  to  guide  others  right.  To 
preach  against  evils  which  we  ourselves  commit,  while  it  ag- 
gravates our  guilt,  is  little  likely  to  do  others  much  good, 
V.  18,  &c. 

3.  Christians  should  ever  rememher  that  they  are  the  epistles 
of  Jesus  Christ,  known  and  read  of  all  men;  that  God  is  hon- 
oured by  their  holy  living,  and  that  his  name  is  blasphemed  when 
they  act  wickedly,  vs.  23,  24. 

4.  Whenever  true  religion  declines,  the  disposition  to  lay 
undue  stress  on  external  rites  is  increased.  The  Jews,  when 
they  lost  their  spirituality,  supposed  that  circumcision  had 
power  to  save  them.  '  Great  is  the  virtue  of  circumcision,'  they 
cried, '  no  circumcised  person  enters  hell.'  The  Christian  church, 
when  it  lost  its  spirituality,  taught  that  water  in  baptism 
washed  away  sin.  How  large  a  part  of  nominal  Christians  rest 
all  their  hopes  on  the  idea  of  the  inherent  efficacy  of  external 
rites!  v.  2.5,  &c. 

5.  While  it  is  one  dangerous  extreme  to  make  religion  con- 
sist in  the  observance  of  external  ceremonies,  it  is  another  to 
undervalue  them,  when  of  divine  appointment.  Paul  does  not 
say  that  circumcision  was  useless;  he  asserts  its  value.  So, 
likewise,  the  Christian  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  to  neglect  or  reject 
them  is  a  great  sin,  v.  26,  &c. 

6.  If  the  heart  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  matters  little 
what  judgment  men  may  form  of  us;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  approbation  of  men  is  a  poor  su institute  for  the  favour  of 
God,  V.  2,9. 


CHAPTER  HI. 

Contents. 
This  chajitor  may  be  divided  into  three  parts.     The   first 
contains  a  brief  statement  and  refutation  of  the  Jewish  objections 
to  the  apostle's  reasoning,  vs.  1 — S.     The  second,  a  confirma- 


ROMANS  3:  1—8.  89 

tion  of  his  doctrine  from  the  testimony  of  scripture ;  and  a  formal 
drawing  out  and  dechiration  of  his  conclusion,  that  '  hy  the 
works  of  the  law  no  flesh  living  can  be  justified  before  God/ 
vs.  9 — 20.  The  third,  an  exposition  of  the  gospel  method  of 
justification,  vs.  21 — 31. 

CHAP.  3:  1—8. 
Analysis. 
The  first  objection  to  Paul's  reasoning  here  presented  is,  that 
according  to  his  doctrine,  the  Jew  has  no  advantage  over  the 
Gentile,  v.  1.  The  apostle  denies  the  correctness  of  this  in- 
ference from  what  he  had  said,  and  admits  that  the  Jews  have 
great  advantages  over  all  other  people,  v.  2.  The  second  ob- 
jection is,  that  God  having  promised  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
their  unfaithfulness,  even  if  admitted,  does  not  release  him  from 
his  engagements,  or  make  his  promise  of  no  effect,  v.  3.  Paul, 
in  answer,  admits  that  the  faithfulness  of  God  must  not  be 
called  in  question,  let  what  will  happen,  vs.  4,  5;  but  he  shows 
that  the  principle  on  which  the  Jews  expected  exemption  from 
punishment,  viz.  because  their  unrighteousness  commended 
the  righteousness  of  God,  was  false.  This  he  proves  by  showing 
first,  that,  if  their  principle  was  correct,  God  could  not  punish 
any  one.  Gentile  or  Jew,  vs.  5,  6,  7;  and  secondly,  that  it  would 
lead  to  this  absurdity,  that  it  is  right  to  do  evil  that  good  may 
come,  V.  8. 

Commentary. 
(1)  What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew  7  or  what  profit '\s 
there  of  circumcision  ?  The  conclusion  at  which  the  apostle 
had  arrived  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter  was,  that 
the  Jews,  as  well  as  Gentiles,  are  to  be  judged  according  to 
their  works  and  by  their  knowledge  of  the  divine  will;  and 
being  thus  judged,  they  are  exposed  to  condemnation,  notwith- 
standing their  circumcision,  and  all  other  advantages.  The 
most  obvious  objection  to  the  mind  of  a  Jew  to  this  conclusion 
must  have  been,  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  acknowledged 
privileges  and  superiority  of  his  nation.  This  objection  the 
apostle  here  presents.  He  states  the  difficulty  himself,  that  he 
may  have  the  opportunity  of  removing  it.  The  word  here 
rendered  advantage,  when  used  as  a   substantive,  properly 

12 


90  ROMANS  3:1—8. 

means  that  ivhich  is  over,  the  excess,  and  then  pre-eminence^ 
superiority.  This  is  its  meaning  here,  '  what  then  is  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  Jew  over  the  Gentile?  according  to  your  rea- 
soning, there  is  no  such  thing;'  compare,  on  this  word,  Matt. 
5:  47.  11:9.  Luke  7:  26.  The  second  interrogation  in  this 
verse  is  nearly  equivalent  with  the  first;  as  circumcision  may 
be  taken  as  the  sign  of  Judaism,  '  what  is  the  profit  of  being  a 
Jew?'  Still  as  Paul  had  considered  circumcision  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  as  a  distinct  ground  of  confidence,  and  as  the 
Jews  attributed  to  it  so  much  importance,  it  is  probably  to  be 
understood  here  of  the  rite  itself. 

(2)  Much  every  way:  chiefly  because  unto  them  loere  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God.    This  is  the  answer  to  the  objection 
presented  in  the  first  verse.     It  consists  in  a  denial  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  inference  from  the  apostle's  reasoning.     It  does 
not  follow,  because  the  Jews  are  to  be  judged  according  to  their 
works,  that  there  is  no  advantage  in  being  the  peculiar  people 
of  God,  having  a  divine  revelation,  &c.  &c.     Paul,  therefore, 
freely  admits  that  the  advantages  of  the  Jews  are  great  in  every 
respect.     The  words  rendered  chiefly,  may  be  variously  ex- 
plained.    They  may,   by  supplying  the  verb  is,  be  rendered 
'the  principal  thing  is;'  so  Beza,  Morus  and  others;  see  Luke 
15:  22.  19:  47.  Acts  25:  2.     Or  they  may  be  taken,  as  by  our 
translators,  and  rendered  chiefly,  especially  ;  see  Matt.  6:  33. 
2  Peter  1:  20;  or  what  is  perhaps  more  natural,  in  the  first 
place;  '  Their  advantages  are  great,  for  first  &c.'     That  no  enu- 
meration follows,  with  secondly,  is  no  objection  to  this  render- 
ing, for  Paul  often   fails  to  carry   out  an   arrangement  with 
which  he  commences;  see  1:  8.     Unto  them  were  committed. 
The  construction  of  this  clause,  in  the  original,  is  one  which 
frequently  occurs  in  Paul's  epistles;  see  1  Cor.  9:17.  Gal.  2: 
7.  2  Thcss.  2:  4.  Titus  1:  3.     The  oracles  of  God.    The  Greek 
word  for  oracles  is  often  used,  in  a  restricted  sense,  for  oracular 
or  prophetic  declarations;  but  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
it  occurs  frequently  in  its  general  sense,  for  ivords,  any  thing 
spoken.     Sec  Num.  24:  4,  Ps.  19:  14,  "let  the  words  of  my 
mouth,"  &c.     Hence,  in  reference  to  divine  communications  of 
any  kind;  see  Acts  7:  38.  Heb.  5:  12,  "The  first  principles  of 
the  oracles  of  God,"  1  Peter  4:  11.     There  is,  therefore,  no 
necessity  for  restricting  the  word  here  either  to  the  prophecies 


ROMANS  3:1—8.  91 

or  promises  of  God.     It  is  to  be  understood  of  all  his  divine 
communications,  i.  e.  of  the  scriptures. 

(3)  But  ivhat,  if  some  did  not  believe?  Shall  their  unbe- 
lief make  the  faith  of  God  loithout  effect?  This  verse  is  very 
difficult.  The  apostle's  manner  of  reasoning  is  often  so  con- 
cise, his  transitions  so  abrupt,  and  his  sentences  at  times  so 
elliptical,  that  cases  frequently  occur  in  which  his  meaning  is 
doubtful,  and  the  reader  has  to  choose  between  two  or  more 
possible  interpretations.  Thus,  in  the  present  instance,  this 
verse  may  express  either  the  sentiment  of  the  apostle  or  of  an 
objector.  If  the  former,  it  may  be  variously  explained.  It 
may  be  a  continuation  of  the  answer  to  the  objection  contained 
in  the  first  verse.  '  The  advantages  of  the  Jews  are  very  great, 
and  even  if,  as  I  have  proved  to  be  the  case,  many  of  them  are 
unfaithful,  this  does  not  invalidate  the  promises  of  God,  or  ren- 
der less  conspicuous  the  favours  which  they  have  received  at 
his  hand.  Of  them  the  Messiah  has  been  born;  through  them 
the  true  religion  is  to  be  spread  abroad;  and  they,  as  a  nation, 
shall  be  ultimately  restored,  &c.'  But  this  interpretation  does 
not  suit  the  context,  nor  the  drift  of  the  apostle's  reasoning. 
He  had  not  proved  that  some  of  them  merely  were  unfaithful, 
and  were  to  be  cast  off;  it  is  not  the  subject  of  the  rejection  of 
the  Jews  so  fully  discussed  in  ch.  11,  that  he  has  here  in  hand, 
he  had  proved  that  they  were  all  liable  to  condemnation;  that 
their  peculiar  advantage's  could  afford  them  no  protection; 
that,  as  to  the  matter  of  justification,  they  and  the  Gentiles 
stood  on  the  same  ground.  Paul's  object,  therefore,  is  not  to 
reconcile  their  rejection  as  the  people  of  God,  with  the  divine 
promises  and  fidelity;  this  he  does  afterwards.  It  is  the  sub- 
ject of  justification  of  which  he  is  now  speaking. 

It  seems,  therefore,  more  natural  to  consider  this  verse  as  ex- 
pressing the  sentiment  of  an  objector,  and  that  which  follows  as 
the  apostle's  answer.  The  objection  is,  that  Paul's  doctrine  of 
the  exposure  of  the  Jews  to  condemnation,  is  inconsistent  with 
God's  promises.  '  What  if  we  have  been  unfaithful,  or  are  as 
disobedient  and  wicked  as  you  would  make  us  appear,  does  that 
invalidate  the  promises  of  God?  Must  he  be  unfaithful  too? 
Has  he  not  promised  to  be  our  God,  and  that  we  should  be 
his  people  ?  These  are  promises  not  suspended  on  our  good 
or  evil  conduct.'     In  favour  of  this  view,  it  may  be  urged, 


92  ROMANS  3:  1—8. 

that  it  was  obviously  one  of  the  great  grounds  of  confidence 
of  the  Jews,  that  they  were  the  peculiar  people  of  God.  Their 
great  objection  to  Paul's  applying  his  general  principles  of 
justice  to  their  case  was,  that  they  were  not  to  be  dealt  with 
like  other  men.  '  God  has  chosen  us  as  his  covenant  people 
in  Abraham.  If  we  retain  our  relation  to  him  by  circumci- 
sion and  the  observance  of  the  law,  we  shall  never  be  treat- 
ed or  condemned  as  the  Gentiles.'  Traces  of  this  opinion 
are  to  be  seen  in  the  New  Testament,  and  its  open  avowal 
among  the  Jewish  writers.  Matt.  3:  9,  "Think  not  to  say 
within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham  for  our  father,"  John 
8:  33,  "  We  be  Abraham's  seed."  See  ch.  2:  17.  9:  G,  and  other 
passages,  in  which  Paul  argues  to  prove,  that  being  the  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham  is  not  enough  to  secure  the  favour  of 
God.  That  such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews,  may  be  seen 
from  the  numerous  passages  from  their  Avritings,  quoted  by 
Eisenmenger,  in  his  Entdccktcs  Judenthum,  Part  II.  p.  293 — 4. 
For  example,  A1)arbanel,  in  his  book  Rosch  Amanah,  fob  5, 
says,  that  if  a  Jew  commits  all  manner  of  sin,  "  He  is,  indeed, 
of  the  numljcr  of  sinning  Israelites,  and  will  be  punished  ac- 
cording to  his  sins;  but  he  has,  notwilhstanding,  a  portion  in 
eternal  life."  The  same  sentiment  is  advanced  in  the  book 
Torath  Adam,  fol.  100,  in  nearly  the  same  words,  and  the  rea- 
son assigned  for  it,  "  That  all  Israel  has  a  jjortion  in  eternal 
life."  This  is  a  favourite  Jewish  phrase,  and  is  frequently  recur- 
ring in  their  writings,  Justin  Martyr,  as  quoted  by  Grotius  on 
ch.  2:13,  attributes  this  doctrine  to  the  Jews  in  the  clearest 
terms,  "  They  suppose  that  to  them  universally,  who  arc  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  no  matter  how  sinful  and  disobedient  to  God 
they  may  be,  the  eternal  kingdom  shall  be  given."  This  in- 
terpretation, therefore,  makes  the  verse  in  (piestion  present  the 
objection  which  the  Jews  would  be  most  likely  to  urge.  A  se- 
cond consideration  in  its  favour  is,  that  the  connexion  with  the 
following  passage,  vs.  4,  5,  6,  is  thus  made  much  more  natural 
and  easy,  as  will  appear  from  what  follows.  The  words  ren- 
dered did  not  believe,  and  unbelief,  may,  in  perfect  accordance 
with  their  meaning  elsewhere,  be  rendered  iverc  unfaithful, 
and  unfiiilhfuhiess.  And  this  rendering  is  necessary  to  make 
the  verse  harmonious,  and  to  express  the  aj)OStle's  meaning, 
*  What  if  some  were  unfaithful  ?  Shall  their  unfaithfulness  make 


ROMANS  3:  1—8.  93 

the  faithfulness  of  God  without  effect?  By  the  Jews  being  un- 
faithful, is  not  intended  tliat  they  did  not  preserve  the  scrip- 
tures, Avhich  were  committed  to  their  care,  but  that  they  did 
not  act  agreeably  to  the  relations  in  which  they  stood  to  God, 
were  not  faithful  to  their  duties  or  advantages.  It  includes, 
therefore,  every'  thing  wiiich  the  apostle  had  charged  upon 
them  as  the  ground  of  their  condemnation.  They  were  un- 
faithful to  their  part  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  them- 
selves. 

(4)  God  forbid :  yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar; 
as  it  is  loritten,  &c.  Tlie  objection  presented  in  the  preceding 
verse  is,  that  the  apostle's  doctrine,  as  to  the  condemnation  of 
the  Jews,  is  inconsistent  with  the  faithfulness  of  God.  '  Is  the 
faith  of  God  Avithout  effect  ?  asks  the  objector.'  '  By  no  means,' 
answers  the  apostle, '  such  is  no  fair  inference  from  my  doctrine, 
let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a  liar.  There  is  no  breach  of 
the  promises  of  God  involved  in  the  condemnation  of  wicked 
Jews.  Those  promises  were  made  not  to  the  natural,  but  to  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Al)raham,  and  will  all  be  accomplished  to  the 
letter,  and,  therefore,  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  unbelieA'ing  Jew.'  All  this,  whicli  is  stated  and 
urged  at  length  in  ch.  9 — 11,  is  included  in  the  vStrong  denial  of 
the  apostle  that  what  he  had  taught  was  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  faithfulness. 

God  forbid.  These  words,  which  occur  so  often  in  our  ver- 
sion, are  a  most  unhappy  rendering  of  the  original,  which  means 
simply  let  it  not  be,  equivalent,  therefore,  witli  by  7io  ??ieans, 
or  far  from  it.  It  is  a  mode  of  expression  constantly  used  to 
express  a  strong  denial.  The  scriptures  do  not  authorize  such 
a  use  of  the  name  of  God,  as  this  phrase  shows  to  have  been 
common  among  the  English  transhitors  of  the  bil^lc.  True,  as 
used  in  this  verse,  means  fait /if u  I,  as  the  context  shows,  and  as 
the  term  elsewhere  signifies,  John  3:  33,  &c. ;  and  liar  expresses 
the  opposite,  unfaithful.  The  sentiment  is,  let  God  be,  i.  e. 
be  seen  and  acknowledged  as  faithful,  let  the  consequences  be 
what  they  may.  '  This  must  be  true,  whatever  else  is  false.' 
This  disposition  to  justify  God  under  all  circumstances  and  at 
all  events,  Paul  illustrates  by  the  conduct  of  David,  who  ac- 
knowledged the  justice  of  God  in  his  own  condemnation,  and 
confesses,  "  Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned;  that  thou  mightest 


94  ROMANS  3:  1—8. 

be  justified  in  thy  sayings,  and  mightest  overcome  when  thou  art 
judged,"  i.  e.  that  thy  rectitude,  under  all  circumstances,  might 
be  seen  and  acknowledged.  In  this  quotation  Paul  follows  the 
Septuagint  translation  of  Ps.  51:  4.  The  Hebrew  runs  thus, 
'  That  thou  mightest  be  justified  when  thou  speakest,  and  be 
clear  when  thou  judgest'  The  general  sentiment  is,  in  either 
case,  the  same,  v.  12.  God  is  just  and  will  always  be  found  to 
be  so.  It  has  been  attempted  to  produce  a  strict  agreement  be- 
tween Paul's  language  and  the  Hebrew,  by  taking  the  words 
rendered  in  thy  sayings,  as  meaning  in  thy  cmises,  and  trans- 
lating the  passive  form  when  thou  art  judged,  actively,  when 
thou  judgest.  But  this  the  usage  of  the  word  will  not  allow; 
neither  does  it  accord  with  the  expression  that  thou  inightest 
overcome,  which  cannot  be  said  of  a  judge,  though,  as  Wet- 
stein  shows,  it  is  frequently  said  of  him  who  succeeds  in  a  trial. 
It  is,  moreover,  unnecessary  to  attempt  to  force  the  passages 
into  a  verbal  agreement.  The  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament frequently  quote  passages  from  the  Old,  careful  only  to 
give  the  sense,  without  adhering  strictly  to  the  words.*  Ac- 
cording to  that  view  of  this  passage,  which  makes  v.  3  to  ex- 
press the  sentiment  of  the  apostle,  the  meaning  of  this  verse 
must  be  somewhat  differently  presented.  The  Jews,  Paul  ad- 
mits, have  many  advantages,  v.  2.  And  even  the  unfaithful- 
ness of  a  large  part  of  their  nation  will  not  make  God's  pro- 
mises of  no  effect.  These  promises  cannot  fail.  Far  from 
it,  God  must  be  faithful,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they 
may.  Though,  when  stated  thus  generally,  these  verses  seem 
to  cohere  naturally,  yet,  when  they  are  considered  in  the  form 
in  which  they  are  presented  by  the  apostle,  the  other  interpre- 
tation appears  more  consistent  with  the  context,  and  the  rela- 
tion of  the  several  parts  of  the  passage  to  each  other.  '  My 
doctrine,'  says  Paul,  '  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  advantages  of 
the  Jews,  which  I  admit  to  be  various  and  great.  But  is  it  not 
inconsistent  with  the  promises  of  God?'  asks  the  Jew.  'By 
no  means,'  answers  Paul;  *  these  arc  to  be  fully  accomplished.' 
Here  ends  his  answer;  how  the  promises  of  God  arc  consistent 
with  the  condemnation  of  the  natural  Israel,  and  their  being 

•  Scimus  apostolos  in  reritandis  scrijitiirac  vorliis  sarpo  esse  libcriorcs :  quia 
satis  habrliant  si  ad  rem  apposite  citarciit ;  quarc  noii  tunla  illis  fuit  vcrlioruni  re- 
ligio.— Calvin. 


ROMANS  3:  1—8.  95 

judged  according  to  the  same  general  principles  with  the  Gen- 
tiles, he  shows  at  length  in  the  appropriate  place,  towards  the 
close  of  the  epistle,  ch.  9 — 11. 

(5)  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  right  eousiiess 
of  God,  ivhat  shall  ive  say  ?     Is  God  unrighteous,  who  talceth 
vengeance  ?   I  speaJc  us  a  man.     This  is  another  cavilling 
objection  of  the  Jew.     '  Not  only  is  God's  fidelity  pledged  for 
our  salvation,  but  the  very  fact  of  our  being  unrighteous  will 
only  render  his  righteousness  the  more  conspicuous.  And  conse- 
quently it  would  be  unjust  in  him  to  punish  us  for  what  glorified 
himself.'     This  passage  is  somewhat  obscure  from  being  pre- 
sented in  the  interrogative  form,  and  from  being  the  language 
of  the  apostle,  though  expressing  the  sentiment  of  an  objector. 
It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  point  of  the  argument  is,  that 
God  cannot  consistently  punish  those  whose  unrighteousness 
serves  to  display  his  own  rectitude.     It  is  easy  to  perceive  that 
these  objections  all  suppose  the  Jew  to  have  felt  secure,  within 
the  precincts  of  God's  covenant  with  his  forefathers.  The  fidelity 
of  God  rendered  certain  the  bestowing  of  all  promised  blessings; 
and  the  unworthiness  of  the  Jews,  as  it  rendered  the  goodness 
and  faithfulness  of  God  the  more  conspicuous,  was  no  reason 
why  they  should  be  condemned.     The  words  righteousness 
and  unrighteousness  are  generic  terms,  the  one  including  all 
moral  excellence,  and  the  other  just  the  reverse.     What,  there- 
fore, before  and  after,  is  expressed  by  the  more  definite  terms, 
faithfulness  and  unfaithfulness,  truth  and  falsehood,  is  here 
expressed  more  generally.     The  word  rendered  to  commend, 
signifies  either  to  recommend,  as  one  person  to  another,  Rom. 
16:  1;  or  to  exhibit  in  a  conspicuous  manner;  see  5:  8,  "  God 
commendeth  his  love  towards  us;"  2  Coz\  7:  11,  "  in  all  things 
ye  have  exhibited  yourselves  as  clear  in  this  matter;"  Gal. 
2:  18,  "I   make  myself  (exhibit  myself)   as  a  transgressor." 
This  is  obviously  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  case.     '  If 
our    unrighteousness    render   the    righteousness  of  God   con- 
spicuous, what  shall  we  say  ?     What  inference  is  to  be  drawn 
from  this  fact?     Are  we  to  infer  that  God  is  unrighteous  who 
taketh  vengeance?  Far  from  it'  The  word  for  vengeance  is  that 
which,  in  1:  18.  2:  5,  is  rendered  wrath,  and  here  is  obviously 
taken  for  its  effect,  i.  e.  punishment;  '  who  inflicts  punish- 
ment'   In  order  to  make  it  evident  that  he  was  not  expressing 


96  ROMANS  3:  1—8. 

his  own  sentiments  in  using  the  language  of  this  verse,  Paul 
adds,  I  speak  as  a  man.  This  phrase,  which  means,  in  general, 
'  as  men  are  accustomed  to  speak'  (or  act),  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence, and  is  variously  modified,  as  to  its  import  by  the  context. 
It  means,  at  times, '  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  comprehension 
of  men,'  Rom.  6:  19;  as  when  God  is  said  to  speak  or  act  after 
the  manner  of  men;  or,  secondly,  '  as  men  generally  speak  and 
act,'  i.  e.  wickedly,  1  Cor.  3:  3;  or,  as  introducing  an  ex- 
ample or  illustration  from  common  life,  1  Cor.  9:  8.  Gal.  3:  15; 
or,  as  in  this  instance,  to  intimate  that  the  writer  is  not  uttering 
his  own  sentiments,  '  I  speak  as  others  speak,' '  I  am  using  their 
language,  not  my  own.'  It  was  the  Jew,  and  not  the  apostle 
who  argued,  that  because  our  wickedness  rendered  the  goodness 
of  God  the  more  conspicuous,  therefore  he  could  not  punish 
us.  Paul,  in  answer  to  this  reasoning,  and  to  the  question 
whether,  under  such  circumstances,  God  is  unrighteous  in  taking 
vengeance,  says  : 

(6)  God  forbid,  for  then  how  shall  God  judge  the  world? 
The  apostle  denies  that  there  is  the  least  ground  for  this  ob- 
jection, and  shows  that  if  it  is  well  founded,  God  cannot  judge 
the  world  at  all.  By  the  world  is  not  to  be  understood  any  one 
class  exclusively,  but  men  in  general;  though  the  Gentiles  may 
have  been  specially  intended.  It  is  obvious  that  all  men  would 
escape  punishment,  if  the  principle  were  once  admitted  that 
God  cannot  punisli  any  whose  wickedness  might  be  the  occa- 
sion of  magnifying  any  of  his  perfections.  The  Jews  were 
sufficiently  prepared  to  admit  that  the  Gentiles  are  liable  to 
punishment,  and  therefore  must  be  convinced  that  a  principle 
which  exempted  them  from  punishment  must  be  false. 

The  word  {or  judge  may  be  taken  eitlicr  generally, '  how  can 
he  exercise  the  office  of  a  judge  over  the  world;'  or,  in  the  sense 
of  condemning,  '  how  can  he  condemn  the  world.'  The  world 
would  then  mean  specially  the  heathen,  as  opposed  to  the  Jews, 
the  nominal  people  of  God.  This  term  is  often  used  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  church,  or  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  John 
15:  18,  '  If  the  world  hate  you,'  'If  ye  were  of  the  world,' 
&c.     The  former  interpretation  is,  however,  the  more  natural. 

(7)  For  if  the  truth  of  God  hath  more  abounded  through 
my  lie  unto  his  glory,  why  yet  a?fi  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner? 
This  is  a  repetition,  in  a  more  definite  form,  of  the  sentiment  of 


ROMANS  3:  1—8.  97 

the  5th  verse.  There  the  general  terms  righteousnegs  and  un- 
righteousness were  used,  here  the  more  specific  ones,  truth  and 
falsehood.  The  sentiment  is  the  same.  Paul  assumes  the 
person  of  the  objector,  and  asks,  '  Can  I  be  justly  treated  as  a 
sinner,  when  through  my  lie,  or  unfaithfulness  to  the  covenant, 
the  truth  or  fidelity  of  God  is  the  more  conspicuously  displayed 
to  his  glory  ?'  The  truth  of  God  may  be  taken  as  a  general 
term  of  excellence;  see  2:  8,  where  truth  is  the  opposite  of 
unrighteousness;  or,  in  the  sense  of  veracity,  adherence  to 
promises;  compare  ch.  15:  8,  The  word  for  lie  is  of  course  the 
opposite  of  the  former,  and  means  perfidy,  want  of  fidelity. 
The  particular  term  here  used  occurs  no  where  else  in  the  New 
Testament. 

According  to  another  Interpretation,  'the  truth  of  God'  is 
taken  for  the  true  majesty  of  God;  lie  for  idolatry,  see  Is.  57: 
11.  59:  13,  and  sinner  for  idolater,  see  Gal.  2:15.  The  sense 
would  then  be,  '  If  the  divine  majesty  is  the  more  displayed  by 
my  idolatry,  why  should  I  be  punished  as  an  idolater  ?'  The 
apostle  is  thus  made  to  personate  a  heathen,  to  show  that  the 
principle  urged  by  the  Jew  in  v.  5,  was  as  available  for  the 
heathen  as  for  him.  Though  this  view  of  the  passage  gives  a 
sense  pertinent  to  the  apostle's  object,  and  consistent  with  the 
context,  yet  it  attaches  such  remote  significations  to  the  several 
terms,  that  it  is  evidently  forced  and  unnatural.  Hath  more 
abounded,  i.  e.  '  appeared  as  more  abundant,'  '  been  seen  as 
such;'  or  the  word  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  excelling,  as  in 
Matt.  5:  20,  "  unless  your  righteousness  excel  the  righteousness 
of  the  scribes,  &c.;"  1  Cor.  8:  8,  "  neither  if  we  eat  are  we  the 
better,  &c."  '  If  God's  truth  is  the  greater,  the  more  con- 
spicuous, &c.  to  his  glory;'  i.  e.  so  that  he  is  glorified.  Why 
am  I  yet  also  judged  as  a  sinner ;  i.  e.  condemned,  or  pun- 
ished as  such. 

(8)  And  not  rather  {as  ice  be  slanderously  reported,  and  as 
some  affirm,  that  we  say)  Let  us  do  evil,  that  good  m,ay  come  7 
luhose  damnation  is  just.  The  sense  of  this  verse  is  obvious, 
though  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  original  is  irregu- 
lar. One  of  the  simplest  and  most  common  methods  of  re- 
solving the  passage,  is  to  supply  the  word  say.  '  Why  not  say 
at  once  (as  some  slanderously  afiirm  that  we  say)  Let  us  do 

13 


98  ROMANS  3:  1—8. 

evil  that  good  may  come.'*  A  second  method  is  the  follow- 
ing: '  Why  not  let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  as  some  slan- 
derously affirm  that  we  teach. 't  Paul  here,  most  probably,  as 
often  elsewhere,  changes  the  construction  of  the  sentence  in 
his  progress  through  it;  see  Gal.  2:  3 — 5.  He  seems  to  have 
intended  to  say,  '  Why  not  let  us  do  evil,  &c.;'  but  having  in- 
terrupted himself,  he  makes  the  latter  clause  grammatically  de- 
pendent on  the  word  say  in  the  parenthesis,  instead  of  connect- 
ing it  with  the  words  with  which  the  sentence  commences.  It, 
therefore,  stands  thus,  '  And  why  not  (as  some  slanderously  af- 
firm that  we  say)  that  we  may  do  evil  that  good  may  come. 
See  Winer's  Grammatik,  p.  434.  Our  version  skilfully  avoids 
the  difficulty,  and  presents  the  meaning  clearly. 

Whose  condemnation,  &c.,  that  is,  the  condemnation  of  those 
who  adopt  the  principle,  that  it  is  right  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come;  not  those  who  slandered  the  apostle.  This  verse 
contains  Paul's  answer  to  the  principle  on  which  the  wicked 
Jews  hoped  for  exemption  from  punishment.  '  Our  unfaithful- 
ness serves  to  commend  the  faithfulness  of  God,  therefore  we 
ought  not  to  be  punished.  According  to  this  reasoning,'  Paul 
answers,  '  The  worse  we  are  the  better.  For  the  more  wicked 
we  are,  the  more  conspicuous  will  be  the  mercy  of  God  in  our 
pardon  ;  we  may,  therefore,  do  evil  that  good  may  come.'  Paul 
frequently,  as  here,  recognizes  the  authority  of  the  instinctive 
moral  feelings  of  men.  He  has  reduced  the  reasoning  of  the 
Jews  to  a  conclusion  shocking  to  the  moral  sense,  and  has 
thereby  refuted  it.  Having  thus  demonstrated  that  the  Jews 
cannot  expect  exemption  on  the  ground  of  being  the  peculiar 
people  of  God,  except  on  principles  incompatible  with  the  go- 
vernment of  the  world,  and  inconsistent  with  the  plainest  moral 
truths,  he  draws,  in  the  next  verse,  the  conclusion,  that  the 
Jew,  as  to  the  matter  of  justification,  has  no  pre-eminence  over 
the  Gentile. 

•  Ecliptica  ost  oratio,  in  qua  subandicndiim  est  vrilnim:  plena  erit,  si  ita  rc- 
solvas,  Et  cur  non  potitis  dicitur  (quemadinoduni  exj)rol)atur  nobis),  quod  facienda 
sint  mala,  ut  oveniant  bona"! — Calvin. 

f  Cur  non  agemus  mala,  ut  inde  tantuin  bonum,  Dei  seilicet  gloria,  provcniat? 
Est  transpositio  qualcs  multae  apud  Hcbracos:  \).ri  oVi  pro  oVi  (Ar^  cur  non. — Gro- 

TIUS. 


ROMANS  3:  1—8.  99 

Doctrines. 

1.  The  advantages  of  membership,  even  of  the  external 
church,  and  of  a  participation  of  its  ordinances,  are  very  nume- 
rous and  great,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  great  advantage  of  the  Christian  over  the  heathen 
world,  and  of  the  members  of  a  visible  ecclesiastical  body  over 
others  not  so  situated,  is  the  greater  amount  of  divine  truth  pre- 
sented to  their  understandings  and  hearts,  v.  2. 

3.  All  the  writings  which  the  Jews,  at  the  time  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  regarded  as  inspired,  are  really  the  word  of  God, 
V.  2. 

4.  No  promise  or  covenant  of  God  can  ever  be  rightfully 
urged  in  favour  of  exemption  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  or 
of  impunity  to  those  who  live  in  it.  God  is  faithful  to  his  pro- 
mises, but  he  never  promises  to  pardon  the  impenitently  guilty, 
vs.  3,  4. 

5.  God  will  make  the  wrath  of  men  to  praise  him.  Their 
unrighteousness  will  commend  his  righteousness,  without,  on 
that  account,  making  its  condemnation  less  certain  or  less  se- 
vere, vs.  5,  6. 

6.  Any  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the  first  principles  of  mo- 
rals must  be  false,  no  matter  how  plausible  the  metaphysical 
argument  in  its  favour.  And  that  mode  of  reasoning  is  correct, 
which  refutes  such  doctrines  by  showing  their  inconsistency 
with  moral  truth,  v.  8. 

Remarks. 

1.  We  should  feel  the  peculiar  responsibilities  which  rest 
upon  us  as  the  inhabitants  of  a  Christian  country,  as  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  church,  and  possessors  of  the  word  of 
God;  as  such,  we  enjoy  advantages  for  which  we  shall  have  to 
render  a  strict  account,  vs.  1 ,  2. 

2.  It  is  a  mark  of  genuine  piety,  to  be  disposed  always  to 
justify  God  and  to  condemn  ourselves.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
disposition  to  self-justification  and  the  extenuation  of  our  sins, 
however  secret,  is  an  indication  of  a  want  of  a  proper  sense  of 
our  own  unworthiness  and  of  the  divine  excellence,  vs.  4,  5. 

3.  Beware  of  any  refuge  from  the  fear  of  future  punishment, 


100  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

founded  upon  the  hope  that  God  will  clear  the  guilty,  or  that 
he  will  not  judge  the  world  and  take  vengeance  for  our  sins, 
vs.  6,  7. 

4.  There  is  no  better  evidence  against  the  truth  of  any  doc- 
trine, than  that  its  tendency  is  immoral.  And  there  is  no 
greater  proof  that  a  man  is  wicked,  that  his  condemnation  is 
just,  than  that  he  does  evil  that  good  may  come.  There  is  com- 
monly, in  such  cases,  not  only  the  evil  of  the  act  committed, 
but  that  of  hypocrisy  and  duplicity  also,  v.  8, 

5.  Speculative  and  moral  truths,  which  are  believed  on  their 
own  evidence  as  soon  as  they  are  presented  to  the  mind,  should 
be  regarded  as  authoritative  and  as  fixed  points  in  all  reason- 
ings. When  men  deny  such  first  principles,  or  attempt  to  push 
beyond  them  to  a  deeper  foundation  of  truth,  there  is  no  end 
to  the  obscurity,  uncertainty  and  absurdity  of  their  specula- 
tions. What  God  forces  us  from  the  very  constitution  of  our 
nature  to  believe,  as,  for  example,  the  existence  of  the  external 
world,  our  own  personal  identity,  the  difference  between  good 
and  evil,  &c.,  it  is  at  once  a  violation  of  his  will  and  of  the  dic- 
tates of  reason  to  deny  or  to  question.  Paul  assumed,  as  an  ulti- 
mate fact,  that  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  v.  8. 


CHAP.  3:  9—20. 

Jinalysis. 

The  apostle  having  answered  the  objections  to  his  argument 
in  proof  that  the  Jews,  being  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God,  are, 
as  such,  exposed  to  condemnation,  draws  in  v.  9,  tlie  obvious 
conclusion,  that  tbey  have,  as  to  the  matter  of  justification,  no 
pre-eminence  over  the  Gentile.  He  confirms  his  doctrine  of 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  men,  by  numerous  quotations  fi'om 
the  Old  Testament.  These  passages  are  descriptive  of  their 
depravity  in  the  general,  vs.  10 — 12;  and  then  of  its  special 
manifestations  in  sins  of  the  tongue,  vs.  13,  14,  and  sins  of  con- 
duct, vs.  15 — 18.  The  conclusion  of  all  this  reasoning,  from 
consciousness,  experience  and  scripture,  is  that  "  all  the  world 
is  guilty  before  God,"  v.  19;  and  the  necessary  consequence, 
"  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,"  v.  20. 


ROMANS  3:  9— 20.VJ  >c    <SL  101 

Commentary.  o      -      i^ 

(9)  What  then?  are  loe  better  than  they?  fi^,vii_n(V^ise. 
♦What  then,'  asks  the  apostle,  '  is  the  conclusion  ^roY»  all^id^is 
reasoninsr  as  to  the  moral  state  and  character  of  tll^  Jfea^s^and 
Gentiles  ?  Are  we  Jews  hetter  off,  or  more  favouralj^  sftuated 
than  they?  By  no  means.'  Our  version  of  the  word  rendered 
are  ive  better,  expresses,  perhaps  with  sufficient  accuracy,  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle.  The  word  probably  signifies  here  do 
toe  excel,  and  as  the  connexion  shows,  do  we  excel  as  to  the 
point  under  discussion,  are  we  more  favourably  situated  as  to 
obtaining  the  divine  favour?  That,  as  to  other  points,  the  Jews 
did  excel,  or  had  many  advantages,  Paul  had  freely  admitted, 
but  as  to  his  justification  before  God,  he  and  the  Gentiles  stood 
on  precisely  the  same  level.  The  word,  however,  here  used, 
occurs  no  where  else  in  the  New  Testament,  and,  in  the  par- 
ticular form  in  which  it  appears,  may  be  rendered  as  active,  or 
passive,  or  middle.  In  the  active  form  the  word  which  literally 
signifies  to  have,  or  hold  before,  very  often  means  to  excel;  but 
no  example  is  produced  of  its  having  this  sense  in  the  middle 
form,  which  is  here  used.  In  this  form  it  signifies  to  have  or 
hold  before  oneself  as  a  shield,  or,  figuratively,  a  pretext  or 
excuse.  Accordingly,  many  would  so  render  it  here,  '  have 
we  any  pretext  or  defence,  any  thing  to  ward  off  the  divine 
displeasure  ?'  By  no  means,  is  the  apostle's  answer.  This 
gives  a  good  sense.  The  other  version,  '  do  we  defend,  or  shall 
we  defend  ourselves  ?'  which  the  middle  form  admits,  does 
not  suit  the  context.  Wetstein  takes  it  as  a  passive,  '  are  we 
excelled  ?'  but  this  too  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  argument. 
In  favour  of  the  common  interpretation,  which  gives  to  the 
middle  form  the  same  sense  with  the  active,  do  we  excel,  is  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  all  the  ancient  versions  and  Greek  and 
Latin  interpreters,  and  its  suitableness  to  the  context. 

The  reason  why  the  Jews  are  declared  to  be  no  l)etter  oft' 
than  the  Gentiles,  as  far  as  justification  is  concerned,  is  given 
in  the  next  clause.  For  ive  have  before  jiroved  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  that  they  are  all  under  sin.  The  word  rendered 
to  prove,  signifies  to  bring  a  charge  against  any  one  ;  and 
here,  to  substantiate  an  accusation.  Paul  had  not  only 
accused,  but  established  the  truth  of  the  accusation,  tliat  the  Jews 


102  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

and  Gentiles  were  all  under  sin.  This  latter  phrase  may  sig- 
nify to  be  under  the  power  of  sin;  or  under  its  guilt,  as  the 
word  sin  often  signifies  guilt  of  sin,  see  1  Cor.  15:  17.  John 
15:  22;  compare  such  passages  as  Gal.  3:  10.  Rom.  7:  25.  6: 
14.  7:14,  &c.  &c.  Both  ideas  are  here  probably  included,  Paul 
had  provfe'd  that  all  were  sinners,  that  is,  corrupt  and  exposed 
to  condemnation. 

Verses  10 — IS  contain  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  the 
universal  sinfulness  of  men,  by  the  testimony  of  scripture. 
These  passages  are  not  to  be  found  consecutively  in  any  one 
place  in  the  Old  Testament, "  but  are  quoted  from  several. 
Verses  10 — 12  are  from  Ps.  14:  53;  v.  13,  from  Ps.  5:  10; 
v.  14,  from  Ps.  10:  7;  vs.  15 — 17,  from  Isaiah  59:  7,  8;  and 
V.  IS,  from  Ps.  3Q>'.  1.  These  passages,  it  will  be  perceived, 
are  of  two  classes;  the  one  general,  descriptive  of  the  whole 
human  race  as  wicked;  the  other  special,  referring  to  particular 
prevalent  sinful  acts  as  evidence  of  the  general  sinfulness  of 
men,  on  the  principle  '  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.' 
This  method  of  reasoning  is  legitimate  and  common.  The 
national  character  of  any  people  is  proved  by  a  reference  to  the 
special  acts  by  which  it  is  manifested.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
every  inhabitant  of  France,  for  example,  should  manifest  his 
gaiety  by  dancing,  to  make  the  argument  good  from  the  preva- 
lence of  this  amusement,  that  gaiety  is  a  national  trait  of  the 
French  character.  So  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that  every 
man  manifests  his  wickedness  by  shedding  blood,  to  make  the  ' 
prevalence  of  this  and  kindred  crimes  a  proof  that  men  are,  as  a 
race,  corrupt. 

(10)  ^is  it  is  written:  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one. 
This  is  a  general  declaration  of  the  universal  wickedness  of  men. 
The  two  ideas  contained  in  this  proposition  are  expressed  in- 
the  following  verses.  All  are  destitute  of  piety,  v.  11;  and  all 
arc  consequently  immoral,  v.  12. 

(11)  Tliere  is  none  that  understandeth,  i.  e.  who  sees  things 
in  their  true  nature;  who  has  right  apprehensions  of  God.  Right 
views  of  truth  arc  uniformly,  l)ecause  necessarily  attended  with 
right  affections  towards  it.  Hence,  '  understanding'  is  in  the 
scriptures  so  often  used  for  religion,  see  on  ch.  1:  21;  and 
hence,  as  an  amplification  of  the  phrase,  '  there  is  none  that 
understandeth,'  Paul  adds,  tJiere  is  none  t licit  seeketh  after  God, 


ROMANS  3:  9—20.  103 

which  expresses  all  those  exercises  of  desire  and  worship,  con- 
sequent on  the  discovery  of  the  divine  excellence. 

(12)  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way.  Blinded  by  sin 
to  the  perfections  and  loveliness  of  God  and  truth,  they  have 
turned  from  the  way  which  he  has  prescribed,  and  which  leads 
to  himself,  and  have  made  choice  of  another  way  and  of  another 
portion.  They  are  together  become  unprojitable,  i.  e.  useless, 
Avorthless,  Qorrupt.  The  last  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew word  used  in  the  passage  quoted,  Ps.  14:  3.  There  is 
none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  Universal  corruption  of 
morals  is  the  consequence  of  universal  apostacy  from  God,  see 
ch.  1:  24,  26,  28. 

(13, 14)  These  verses  present  that  evidence  of  the  sinfulness 
of  men  which  consists  in  the  universal  prevalence,  under  some 
form  or  other,  of  evil  speaking.  Their  throat  is  an  open 
sepulchre,  i.  e.  from  their  throat  issue  w^ords  as  offensive  and 
pestiferous  as  the  tainted  breath  of  an  open  grave;  or,  what  from 
the  next  clause  may  appear  probable,  '  their  throat  is  always 
open,  and  ready  to  devour  like  the  insatiable  and  insidious 
grave.'  They  injure  by  deceit  and  slander,  which  is  the  poison 
of  asps.  Their  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness,  i.  e. 
of  bitter  execration,  expressive  of  malignity  towards  men,  and 
impiety  towards  God. 

(15 — 17)  Contain  the  argument  for  the  apostle's  doctrine, 
derived  from  the  prevalence  of  sins  of  violence.  Their  feet 
are  swift  to  shed  blood;  they  frequently,  and  without  com- 
punction commit  murder  and  violence.  Destruction  and 
misery  are  in  their  ways,  i.  e.  mark  their  path.  The  ivay  of 
peace  they  have  not  knoum.  '  The  way  of  peace'  means  the 
way  which  leads  to  peace  or  happiness.  Here  the  happiness 
of  others  is  principally  intended.  '  They  do  not  pursue  that 
course  which  is  productive  of  happiness.'  This  clause,  there- 
fore, includes  all  the  manifestations  of  an  evil  heart,  which  are 
seen  in  the  numberless  ways  in  which  men  injure  their  fellow 
creatures. 

(18)  Is  again  a  general  declai'ation  of  unrestrained  wicked- 
ness. Their  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes.  They  are 
not  actuated  by  any  regard  to  the  will  or  displeasure  ot  God. 
Religious  considerations  have  no  force  in  the  government  of 
their  conduct. 


101  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

(19)  Now  loe  know  that  what  things  soever  the  law  salt h, 
it  saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law.  The  Hebrew  word 
usually  translated  law,  means  instruction,  and  is  used  for  any 
iiitimation  of  the  will  of  God  designed  for  the  direction  of  men; 
see  Is.  1:  8.  8:  16.  Proy.  1:  8,  &c.  &c.  It  depends  on  the  con- 
text whether  reference  be  had  to  the  general  rule  of  duty  which 
he  has  prescribed,  or  to  some  one  of  its  parts  more  or  less  ex- 
tended. In  like  manner  the  apostle  uses  the  corresponding 
Greek  word  almost  uniformly  in  the  sense  of  the  rule  of  duty; 
whether  written  in  the  heart,  contained  in  the  whole  of  the 
scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  some  of  its  parts.  It  is 
generally  easy,  from  the  context,  to  determine  what  law,  or 
rather  what  part  of  the  law,  or  rule  of  duty,  he  has  in  each 
case  specially  in  view.  Here  it  is  obvious  that  the  law  means 
the  scriptures  which  contain  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our 
obedience.  These  passages  quoted  above  are  taken  not  from 
the  Pentateuch,  or  law,  in  its  more  restricted  sense,  but  from  the 
Psalms  and  Prophets;  see  John  10:  34.  1  Cor.  14:  21,  &c. 
Those  ivho  are  under  the  law,  see  2:  12.  1  Cor.  9:  20.  '  What 
the  scriptures  say  concerning  the  character  of  men,  they  must 
be  understood  as  saying  of  those  to  wliom  they  are  specially 
directed.'  The  Jews  cannot  pretend  that  the  passages  quoted 
above  have  reference  to  the  Gentiles;  being  found  in  their  own 
law,  and  addressed  to  them,  they  must  be  considered  as  indi- 
cating the  light  in  which  their  character  and  conduct  were 
viewed  by  God. 

That  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  i.  e.  that  men  may  be 
deprived  of  all  excuse,  completely  reduced  to  silence,  ^nd 
the  whole  ivorld  become  guilty  before  God.  The  word  ren- 
dered guilty  is  applied  to  one  who  has  lost  his  cause,  or  who 
has  been  convicted,  or  found  guilty.  The  result,  therefore,  at 
which  the  apostle  has  arrived,  the  conclusion  of  his  argument, 
from  consciousness,  experience  and  scripture,  is,  that  the  whole 
world  is  guilty  before  God,  i.  e.  in  his  judgment  or  estimation. 
The  lohole  luorld  must,  in  this  connexion,  include  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  because  the  preceding  argument  had  related  to 
both  classes,  and  in  what  follows  reference  is  also  had  to  both. 

(20)  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  jus- 
tified in  his  sight,  &c.  Compare  Ps.  143:  2,  "  Enter  not  into 
judgment  with  thy  servant  (bring  him  not  to  trial);  for  in  thy 


ROMANS  3:  9—20.  105 

sight  (before  thee  as  judge)  shall  no  man  living  be  justified,"  i.  e. 
acquitted;  not  pardoned  merely,  but  pronounced  just,  declared  to 
be  such  as  the  law  requires.  This  is  the  very  idea  of  the  word 
just  or  righteous,  one  who  is  right,  or  conformed  to  the  rule 
of  judgment.*  Hence,  jw.s^  works,  1  John  3:  12,  are  works 
conformed  to  the  law.  To  justify,  then,  is  to  declare  just,  to 
pronounce  righteous  according  to  the  standard  of  the  law.  This 
is  what  the  Psalmist  says  no  man  living  can  expect,  when  called 
into  trial  at  the  bar  of  God;  it  is  what  Paul  says  can  be  declared 
of  no  flesh  on  the  ground  of  the  deeds  of  the  law.  The  word, 
as  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  does  not,  in  its  simple  form, 
mean  to  be  pure  or  morally  good,  so  much  as  to  be  in  the 
right;  see  Gen.  36:  26,  "  She  is  more  in  the  right  than  I;"  Job. 
9:  15,  "Though  I  were  in  the  right  I  would  not  answer:"  13: 
18,  "I  know  that  I  am  in  the  right,"  that  the  law  is  on  my 
side.  In  its  other  forms  (Piel  and  Hiphil)  it  signifies,  to  de- 
clare otie  to  be  in  the  right,  or  to  be  right  according  to  the 
standard.  Job  33:  32,  "  If  thou  hast  any  thing  to  say,  speak, 
for  I  desire  to  justify  thee;"  to  pronounce  thee  to  be  right, 
what  the  law  requires;  Is.  5:  23,  "Which  justify  the  wicked 
for  reward,"  who  pronounce  the  wicked  to  be  in  the  right, 
"and  who  take  away  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  from 
him,"  i.  e.  who  deprive  those  who  are  in  the  right,  of  the  bene- 
fits of  being  so;  Pro  v.  17:  15,  "  He  that  justifieth  the  wicked, 
and  condemneth  the  just,  even  they  both  are  an  abomination  to 
the  Lord."  All  these  terms,  righteous,  righteousness,  to  jus- 
tify, and  to  condemn,  are  forensic  expressions,  and  are  mutually 
illustrative.  The  first  is  the  predicate  of  one  who  is  what  the 
law  demands,  or  who  is  in  the  right;  Ex.  9:  27,  "  The  Lord  is  in 
the  right,  and  I  and  my  people  are  in  the  wrong;"  23:  8,  "A  gift 
blindeth  the  wise,  and  perverteth  the  words  of  the  righteous," 
i.  e.  causes  the  plea  of  him  who  is  in  the  right  to  be  disregard- 
ed. A  righteous  judge,  a  righteous  judgment,  a  righteous  man, 
and  a  righteous  action  are  such  as  are  conformable  to  the  law; 
see  2  Tim.  4:  16.  John  7:  24.  Luke  12:  57.  Rom.  2:  13.  Right- 
"^eoiisness,  consequently,  means  both  the  character  and  state  of 

*   Aixaio?  is  thus  defined  hy  Wahl:  omnibus  numeris  absohitiis ; — qui  talis  est, 
qualis  esse  debet. 

Gerecht,  was  so  ist  wic  es  seyn  soil. — Neandeu,  Geschichte  der  Pflaiiziuig,  &c. 
p.  506. 

14 


106  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

one  who  is  righteous.  Sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the 
other  idea  is  expressed  by  the  term.  It  is  that  which  the  law 
demands;  when  spoken  of  men,  it  is  that  disposition  or  character 
which  makes  them  what  they  ought  to  be;*  and  which  entitles 
them  to  the  benefits  which  belong  to  those  who  have  fulfilled 
the  law,  see  ch.  1:  17.  It  is,  hence,  often  used  for  the  state  of 
those  who  are  thus  righteous,  Is.  5:  23.  Gal.  3:21,  &c.  To  jus- 
tify is  to  declare  just  or  righteous  in  the  sense  just  stated;  it  is 
to  pronounce  one  to  be  what  the  law  demands,  and,  consequent- 
ly, entitled  to  the  benefits  which  belong  to  those  who  are  thus 
righteous;!  see  the  passages  above  quoted.  Hence,  'to  be 
righteous  before  God,'  and  '  to  be  justified  in  his  sight,'  are  pre- 
cisely synonymous,  ch.  2:  13.  And  'to  attribute  righteous- 
ness,' or  to  ascribe  to  any  one  the  excellence  which  the  law  de- 
mands, and  to  recognize  his  claim  to  be  treated  accordingly,  is 
the  precise  idea  of  justification,  and  is,  therefore,  interchanged 
with  the  term  to  justify.  Rom.  4:  6,  "  Blessedness  of  the  man 
to  whom  the  God  imputeth  (ascribes)  righteousness  without 
works;"  V.  11,  "That  righteousness  might  be  imputed  (ascribed) 
unto  them  also,"  &c.  &c.  So  also  'to  constitute  righteous,' 
Rom.  5:  19,  is  to  justify;  it  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  having 
righteousness  in  the  sense  just  described.  To  condemn,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  to  pronounce  guilty,  and  to  treat  accordingly; 
it  is  to  declare  one  to  be  such  as  the  law  forbids,  and  worthy  of 
the  punishment  which  it  threatens,  Ex.  22:  9.  Deut.  25:  1. 
The  word,  used  in  those  and  other  similar  passages,  means  lite- 
rally to  make  or  declare  wicked;  Ps.  94:  21,  "Who  declare 
and  treat  the  innocent  as  wicked;"  compare  Ps.  109:  7,  "  When 
he  is  judged,  let  him  be  condemned,"  literally,  go  out  as  wick- 
ed; Job  27:  7,  "  Let  mine  enemy  be  as  the  wicked,"  i.  e.  as  one 
brought  in  guilty,  regarded  and  treated  as  wicked.  See  Prof. 
Bush's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Ps.  1:  1. 

What  Paul,  therefore,  afiirms  in  this  verse,  is,  that  no  man 

*   Indoles  ejus,  qui  talis  est,  qualis  esse  debet. — Waul. 

"  By  the  iiaiiic  Jixaiotf^jvyj  (righteousness)  wiis  intended,  in  tlie  Old  Testament 
sense  of  the  term,  that  j)erfeet  theoeratical  disposition  and  eonduet,  with  whieh 
was  connected,  tofrether  with  comjilete  theoeratical  citizenship,  and  claim  to  all  the 
benefits  which  belonged  to  the  members  of  the  theocracy,  a  title  to  perfect  blessed- 
ness."— N  KAN  I)  EH,  (ieschichte  der  Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  504. 

f  Talcm  aliqucm  agnosco,  declare  et  tracto,  qualem  esse  debet. — Waul. 


ROMANS  3:  9—20.  107 

can,  in  the  sight  of  God,  be  regarded  as  righteous,  and  entitled 
to  be  treated  as  such,  on  the  ground  of  his  obedience  to  the 
law.  This  assertion,  considered  as  an  inference  from  the  pre- 
ceding reasoning,  is  founded  on  two  assumptions,  both  of  which 
are  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  law.  The  first  is,  that 
the  law  demands  perfect  obedience;  the  second,  that  its  penalty 
must  be  inflicted.  The  former  must  be  assumed,  because,  other- 
wise, the  mere  proof  that  all  men  have  broken  the  law,  is  no 
proof  that  the  law  may  not  acquit  them,  because  only  a  certain 
amount  of  transgression  would,  on  this  supposition,  lead  to  con- 
demnation. The  latter  must  also  be  taken  for  granted,  for  if 
there  is  no  forfeiture  of  good  consequent  on  transgression,  what 
is  the  meaning  of  condemnation  ?  There  is  no  practical  differ- 
ence between  being  justified  and  being  condemned,  if  the  for- 
mer does  not  include  the  communication  of  good,  and  the  latter 
the  infliction  of  evil.  In  proving  all  men  to  be  sinners,  Paul 
proved  them  to  be  liable  to  punishment,  which,  of  course,  im- 
plies that  punishment  is  to  be  connected  with  sin;  or  that  "  the 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed  against  all  ungodliness  and  unright- 
eousness." This  principle  is  the  basis  of  all  his  reasoning.  On 
this  rests  his  argument  from  the  universality  of  sin  to  the  uni- 
versality of  exposure  to  wrath,  v.  9,  and  the  inference  from  the 
universal  guilt  of  men  to  the  necessity  of  the  Saviour  and  his 
sacrifice  which  he  proceeds  to  exhibit.  '  Therefore,'  says  the 
apostle, '  seeing  all  men  are  sinners,  and,  being  sinners,  exposed 
to  the  wrath  of  God,  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  be  pro- 
nounced just  by  the  very  law  which  pronounces  them  unjust.' 
To  prove  a  man  a  sinner,  is  to  prove  that  the  law  condemns 
him  for  his  works,  of  course  it  cannot  justify  him  for  his  works. 
To  say  that  a  man  is  a  sinner,  therefore,  is  to  say  that  he  cannot 
be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Deeds  of  the  law  are, 
of  course,  such  deeds  as  the  law  prescribes.  The  law,  of  which 
Paul  here  speaks,  is  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  man's  ol)edi- 
ence,  the  universal  rule  of  duty,  see  v.  19.  That  it  is  not  to  be 
restricted  to  the  Mosaic  law,  as  though  ceremonial  works  alone 
were  intended,  is  evident,  1.  Because  Paul  is  here  speaking  of 
"  the  whole  world,"  of  "  all  flesh,"  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 
The  former  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Mosaic  law.  Why 
should  Paul  affirm  that  they  could  not  be  justified  by  a  law 
which  was  never  obligatory  upon  them  ?    2.  He  had  just  used 


108  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

the  word  law,  not  in  reference  to  the  Mosaic  institutions,  but 
to  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  contained  the 
whole  revealed  will  of  God.  The  works  of  which  he  speaks, 
are  works  prescribed  by  this  law,  and  comprehend,  of  course, 
all  moral  duties.  3.  The  Jews  never  made  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  moral  and  ceremonial  law,  which  the  opposite  inter- 
pretation supposes.  To  them,  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  ritual 
was  as  much  a  moral  duty  as  any  thing  else  could  be.  They 
certainly,  therefore,  would  understand  the  apostle  as  meaning 
by  the  phrase  "works  of  the  law,"  works  of  obedience  to  God 
generally;  consequently,  this  must  be  his  meaning.  4.  There 
is,  in  fact,  no  ground  for  the  distinction  in  reference  to  this 
case;  because  obedience  to  the  divine  command  is  always  a 
moral  act,  whether  that  command  be  2i  positive  one,  or  have  its 
foundation  in  the  reason  and  nature  of  things.  5.  The  whole 
context  and  drift  and  object  of  the  epistle  require  this  interpre- 
tation. The  works  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  of  which  he 
had  been  speaking,  were  moral  works;  the  law  which  they  had 
broken  was  the  moral  law;  it  is  that  law  which  he  proves  can 
neither  justify  nor  sanctify,  which  produces  conviction  of  sin, 
which  says,  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet,'  which  is  '  holy,  just  and 
good,' and  which  is  exceeding  broad.  6.  The  argument  of  the 
apostle  would  otherwise  be  inconsistent  and  inconclusive.  How 
can  the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  prove  that  ritual  observances 
cannot  save  them.?  It  proves  that  they  cannot  be  justified  on 
the  ground  of  their  own  character  and  conduct,  but  not  that 
this  or  that  class  of  works  is  insuificient.  Is  it  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  mere  ceremonial  works  cannot  save 
us,  but  that  moral  obedience  can?  Is  the  deliverance  which 
Christ  has  effected,  a  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  the  Mo- 
saic system  merely  ?  Is  it  the  law  of  Moses  only  from  which 
Christ  died  to  I'edeem  us?  It  would  seem  that  but  little  insight 
into  the  meaning  of  the  scriptures,  or  the  nature  of  religion, 
were  necessary  to  lead  us  to  answer  these  questions  in  the  nega- 
tive. 7.  The  objections  to  Paul's  doctrine  all  suppose  the 
moral  law  to  be  here  intended.  In  the  sixth  chapter,  the  ob- 
jection, which  the  apostle  answers,  is  not  that  the  neglect  of  the 
law  of  Moses  must  lead  to  licentiousness,  but  that  if  good 
works  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  as  the  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance, men  will  live  in  sin.     S.  What  is  here  said  of  works 


ROMANS  3:  9—^01  109 

of  the  law,  is  elsewhere  said  of  works  generally;  2  Tim.  2:  9, 
"  Who  hath  saved  us  not  according  to  (or  on  account  of)  our 
works;"  Titus  3:  5,  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which 
we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  hath  saved  us;" 
Eph.  2:  9,  "We  are  saved  by  faith  not  by  works;"  see  Rom.  4: 
2,  &c.  &.C.  This  point  has  been  dwelt  on  at  greater  length,  be- 
cause it  is  one  of  the  hinges  to  the  exposition  of  the  epistle,  and 
of  the  whole  plan  of  the  gospel.  If,  as  Pelagius,  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  and  a  multitude  of  other  commentators  say,  ceremonial 
works  only  are  intended  here,  and  in  other  similar  passages, 
then  is  the  gospel  one  thing;  but  if  moral  as  well  as  ceremonial 
works  are  excluded  by  the  apostle  from  being  the  ground  of  our 
justification,  then  is  it  another  and  a  very  different  thing.  Most 
of  the  arguments  mentioned  above  are  valid  aaiainst  the  doctrine 
of  many  of  the  Catholic  divines,  that  Paul  has  reference  to  works 
done  before  regeneration  only,  and  not  to  those  which  flow 
from  a  renewed  heart.  Such  works,  however,  are  surely 
"  works  of  righteousness,"  which,  the  apostle  says,  are  not  the 
ground  of  our  acceptance.  Besides,  this  distinction  is  alto- 
gether arbitrary.  Paul  docs  not  make  it.  By  the  "  works  of 
the  law,"  he  intends  those  works  which  the  law  of  God,  or  the 
whole  rule  of  duty  prescribes.  These,  of  course,  are  all  moral 
duties  of  every  kind.  To  make  the  apostle  mean  that  the  moral 
law,  as  an  external,  objective,  and  authoritative  presentation  of 
the  will  of  God,  cannot  call  forth  moral  exercises  really  holy 
and  acceptable,  is  to  confound  entirely  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification.  The  truth  here  sussested,  Paul  does, 
indeed,  abundantly  teach  in  the  6th  and  7th  chapters  of  this 
epistle;  but  it  is  at  the  expense  of  every  sound  rule  of  interpre- 
tation that  this  meaning  is  forced  upon  such  expressions  as  those 
of  this  verse.  The  whole  of  the  first  five  chapters  of  the  epis- 
tle is  employed  in  stating,  illustrating  and  defending  the  great 
truth,  that  the  ground  of  a  sinner's  acceptance  is  not  in  him- 
self; it  is  nothing  subjective,  no  state  of  mind,  no  works  of  mo- 
rality or  form,  nothing  produced  in  him  or  done  by  him;  but 
something  done  for  him,  something  out  of  himself  which  he 
must  accept,  and  upon  which  he  must  rely.  Paul  does  not 
make  a  distinction  between  '  works  of  the  law'  and  '  good 
works.'     The  passage  in  Eph.  2:  9,  10,  referred  to  in  proof  of 


no  ROMANS  3:  9—20. 

this  point,  contains  no  such  sentiment.  Paul  says,  "  By  grace 
are  ye  saved  through  faith,  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should 
boast.  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  2;ood  works."  There  is  no  distinction  here  between 
^  works'  and  '  good  works.'  They  are  evidently  the  same.  '  We 
are  not  saved  for  our  works,  though  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
we  should  walk  in  them,  and  he  has  created  us  anew  in  Christ 
Jesus  for  this  very  purpose.'  Besides,  Paul  expressly  excludes 
all  works,  without  distinction,  and  works  of  righteousness  by 
name,  as  any  part  of  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  (see  the 
passages  quoted  above).  And  yet  'righteousness'  was,  as 
Neander  admits,  the  highest  term  of  excellence*  with  the  apos- 
tle. 'Works  of  righteousness,'  therefore,  are  good  works  in 
the  highest  sense  of  the  term.  The  distinguished  writer  just 
mentioned  seems  to  understand  Paul  as  teaching  that  the  law,  as 
an  external  rule  of  duty,  was  unable  to  produce,  in  fallen  man,  a 
righteousness  of  any  avail  before  God;  all  works  done  under 
its  influence  are  deficient  in  the  right  disposition;  they  lack  the 
living  principle  of  holiness.  Had  there  been  a  law  capable  of  pro- 
ducing the  divine  life  in  the  soul,  righteousness  would  have  been 
of  the  law,  Gal.  3:  21.  But  as  this  was  out  of  its  power,  God 
has  accomplished  this  object  through  the  gospel  of  his  Son;  see 
Geschichte  der  Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  503 — 10.  This  is  transferring 
what  Paul  teaches  in  ch.  6th  and  7th,  on  the  doctrine  of  sanc- 
tification,  to  what  he  says  on  justification.  That  Paul  does 
teach  that  the  law  cannot  produce  spiritual  life,  is  readily  ad- 
mitted; but  this  idea  is  foreign  to  the  whole  of  the  first  part  of 
the  epistle,  and  is  never  presented  by  him  in  connexion  with 
the  doctrine  of  justification.  Is  is  entirely  at  variance  with  all 
his  declarations  and  arguments,  as  to  the  insufficiency  of  all 
works  of  every  kind,  to  recommend  us  to  God,  and  of  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  the  works  and  death  of  Christ,  to  secure  the 
divine  favour,  whence  springs  the  fountain  of  spiritual  life. 
Our  holiness  flows  from  our  acceptance,  and  not  our  acceptance 

*  Auch  von  scincm  christlichen  Standpunktc  gait  ihm  das  Prlitlikat  oincs 
(5ixaio5  als  das  hdchstc,  welches  einom  Monschcn  crtheilt  vvcrilcn  konnte.  See  p. 
505  of  liis  work  just  quoted.  Accordingly,  in  a  note  to  the  passage  here  cited,  he 
says  he  cannot  .admit  that  ayaSo's  in  Rom.  5:  7,  expesscs  a  liigher  degree  of 
moral  excellence  than  Oi'xaios- 


ROMANS  3:  9— 20:  •  111 

from  our  holiness.*  The  conclusion,  then,  at  which  the  apos- 
tle has  arrived,  is,  that  by  no  obedience  which  men  can  render 
to  the  law  of  God,  can  they  be  justified  in  his  sight. 

For  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  As  the  law  was 
not  designed  or  adapted  for  the  justification  of  sinners,  Paul 
briefly  stated  its  real  object  and  use.  The  law  produces  the 
recognition  of  sin  in  its  true  nature  and  consequences.  It  leads 
to  the  conviction  of  its  exceeding  turpitude,  and  desert  of  pun- 
ishment. When  the  law  has  produced  this  result,  it  has  pre- 
pared us  for  the  reception  of  the  gospel. 

Doctrines. 

1.  However  men  may  diff"er  among  themselves  as  to  individual 
character,  as  to  outward  circumstances,  religious  or  social,  when 
they  appear  at  the  bar  of  God,  all  appear  on  the  same  level. 
All  are  sinners,  and  being  sinners,  are  exposed  to  condemnation, 
v.  9. 

2.  The  general  declarations  of  the  scriptures  descriptive  of 
the  character  of  men,  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  are  applicable 
to  men  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  because  they  describe  human 
nature.  They  declare  what  fallen  man  is.  As  we  recognize 
the  descriptions  of  the  human  heart,  given  by  profane  writers  a 
thousand  years  ago,  as  suited  to  its  present  character,  so  the 


*  Neque  vero  me  latet,  Augustinum  sccus  exponere ;  justitiara  enim  Dei  esse 
putat  regenerationis  gratiam ;  et  hanc  gratuitam  esse  fatctur,  quia  Dominus  im- 
merentes  Spiritu  suo  nos  renovat.  Ab  iiac  autem  opera  legis  excludit,  hoc  est 
quibus  homines  a  seipsis  citra  renovationem  conaiitur  Deum  promereri.  Mihi  etiara 
plus  satis  notum  est,  quosdam  novos  speculatorcs  hoc  dogma  supercihose  profcrrc 
quasi  hodie  sibi  revclatum.  Scd  apostolum  onmia  sine  exceptione  opera  complecti, 
etiam  quae  Dominus  in  suis  efficit,  ex  contextu  planum  fict.  Nam  ccrte  regene- 
ratus  erat  Abraham,  et  Spiritu  Dei  agebatur  quo  tempore  justificatumfuisse  operibus 
negat  Ergo  a  justificatione  hominis  non  opera  tantum  moraliter  bona  (ut  vulgo 
appellant)  et  quae  fiunt  naturae  instinctu  excludit,  sed  quaecunque  etiam  fideles 
habere  possunt.  Deinde  si  ilia  est  justitiae  fidei  definitio,  Beati  quorum  remissae 
sunt  iniquitates,  Ps.  32 :  I ;  non  disputatur  de  hoc  vel  illo  genera  operum ;  sed 
abolito  operum  merito  sola  peccatorum  remissio  justitiae  causa  statuitur.  Putant 
haec  duo  optime  convenire,  fide  justificari  homincm  per  Cliristi  gratiam ;  et  tamen 
opcribus  justificari,  quae  ex  rcgcncratione  spiritual!  proveniant;  quia  et  gratuito  nos 
Deus  rcuovat,  ct  ejus  donum  fide  percipimus.  At  Paulus  longe  aliud  principium 
sumit:  nunquam  scilicet  tranquillas  fi)re  conscientias,  donee  in  solam  Dei  miscricor- 
diam  recumbant ;  ideo  alibi  postquam  docuit  Deum  fuisse  in  Christo,  ut  homines 
justificaret,  modum  simul  cxprimit,  non  ijnputajido  illis  peccata. — CiLViif. 


112  •  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

inspired  description  suits  us,  as  well  as  those  for  whom  it  was 
originally  intended,  vs.  10 — 18. 

3.  Piety  and  morality  cannot  be  separated.  If  men  do  not 
understand,  if  they  have  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  they 
become  altogether  unprofitable,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good, 
vs.  10 — 12. 

4.  The  office  of  the  law  is  neither  to  justify  nor  to  sanctify. 
It  convinces  and  condemns.  All  efforts  to  secure  the  favour  of 
God,  therefore,  by  legal  obedience,  must  be  vain,  v.  20. 

Reynarks. 

1.  As  God  regards  the  moral  character  in  men,  and  as  we  are 
all  sinners,  no  one  has  any  reason  to  exalt  himself  over  another. 
With  our  hands  upon  our  mouth,  and  our  mouth  in  the  dust,  we 
must  all  appear  as  guilty  before  God,  v.  9. 

2.  The  scriptures  are  the  message  of  God  to  all  to  whom 
they  come.  They  speak  general  truths  which  are  intended  to 
apply  to  all  to  whom  they  are  applicable.  What  they  say  of 
sinners,  as  such,  they  say  of  all  sinners;  Avhat  they  promise  to 
believers,  they  promise  to  all  believers.  They  should,  therefore, 
ever  be  read  with  a  spirit  of  self-application,  vs.  10 — 18. 

3.  To  be  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  Gospel,  we  must 
be  convinced  of  sin,  humbled  under  a  sense  of  its  turpitude, 
silenced  under  a  conviction  of  its  condemning  power,  and  pros- 
trated at  the  foot-stool  of  mercy,  under  a  feeling  that  we  cannot 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  that  if  ever  saved,  it  must  be  by 
otiier  merit  and  other  power  than  our  own,  v.  20. 


CHAPTER  3:  21—31. 

Jina  lysis. 

Having  proved  that  justification,  on  the  ground  of  legal  obe- 
dience or  personal  merit,  is  for  all  men  impossible,  Paul  pro- 
ceeds to  unfold  the  method  of  salvation  presented  in  the  gospel. 
With  regard  to  this  method,  he  here  teaches,  1.  Its  nature.  2. 
The  ground  on  which  the  offer  of  justification  is  made.  3.  Its 
object.     4.  Its  results. 

I.  As  to  its  nature,  he  teaches,  1.  That  the  righteousness 
which  it^roposes  is  not  attainable  by  works,  but  by  faith,  vs. 


ROMANS  3:  21— 31.  113 

21,  22.  2,  That  it  is  adapted  to  all  men,  Jews  as  well  as  Gen- 
tiles, since  there  is  no  difference  as  to  their  moral  state,  vs.  22, 
23.     3.  It  is  entirely  gratuitous,  v.  24. 

II.  As  to  its  ground,  it  is  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  or  Jesus  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  vs.  24,  25. 

III.  Its  object,  the  display  of  the  divine  perfections,  and  the 
reconciliation  of  the  justice  of  God,  with  the  exhibition  of  mercy 
to  the  sinner,  v.  26. 

IV.  Its  results.  1.  It  humbles  man  by  excluding  all  ground 
of  boasting,  vs.  27,  28.  2.  It  presents  God  in  his  true  character 
as  the  God  and  father  of  all  men,  of  the  Gentile  no  less  than  the 
Jew,  vs.  29,  30.     3.  It  confirms  the  law,  v.  31. 

Commentary. 
(21)  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the  law 
is  manifested,  &lc.  Having  demonstrated  that  no  flesh  could 
be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  the 
apostle  proceeds  to  show  how  the  sinner  can  be  justified.  With 
regard  to  this  point,  he  teaches,  in  this  verse,  1.  That  the  right- 
eousness which  is  acceptable  to  God  is  not  a  legal  righteousness; 
and  2.  That  it  had  been  taught  already  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  words  hut  now  may  be  regarded  as  merely  marking  the 
transition  from  one  paragraph  to  another,  or  as  a  designation  of 
time,  ?iow,  i.  e.  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  In  favour  of  this 
view  is  the  phrase, "  to  declare,  at  this  time,  his  righteousness," 
in  V.  26;  compare  also  1:  17.  Is  manifested,  i.  e.  clearly  made 
known,  equivalent  with  the  phrase  is  revealed,  as  used  in  1:17. 
The  words  righteousness  of  God,  are  subjected  here  to  the 
same  diversity  of  interpretation  that  was  noticed  in  the  passage 
just  cited,  where  they  first  occur.  They  may  mean,  1.  A  divine 
attribute,  the  justice,  mercy,  or  general  rectitude  of  God.  2. 
That  righteousness  which  is  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  such  in 
his  estimation.  3.  God's  method  of  justification;  see  note  on 
1:  17.  The  last  interpretation  gives  here  a  very  good  sense, 
and  is  one  very  commonly  adopted.  '  The  method  of  justifica- 
tion by  works  being  impossible,  God  has  revealed  another, 
already  taught  indeed  both  in  the  law  and  prophets,  a  method 
which  is  not  legal  (without  law),  i.  e.  not  on  the  condition  of 
obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  the  condition  of  faith,  which  is 
applicable  to  all  men,  and  perfectly  gratuitous,'  vs.  21 — 24.    But 

15 


114  ROMANS  3:21— 31. 

for  the  reasons  given  on  ch.  1:17,  the  second  interpretation  is  to 
be  preferred.  The  term  righteousness  is  employed  to  designate 
all  that  excellence  which  is  demanded  by  the  law,  and  which 
entitles  to  all  the  blessings  of  a  state  of  justification,  and  fre- 
quently includes  the  idea  of  this  blessedness  itself,  i.  e.  the  bless- 
edness of  the  state  of  complete  favour  with  God;  see  above,  on' 
V.  20.  The  phrase  righteousness  of  God,  then  means  that  right- 
eousness with  its  consequent  blessings,  of  which  God  is  the 
author,  which  is  of  avail  before  God,  which  meets  and  secures  his 
approbation.*  This  interpretation  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
context.  '  As  men  cannot  attain  to  righteousness  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  God  has  revealed  in  the  gospel  another  righteous- 
ness, which  is  not  legal,  but  which  is  to  be  attained  by  faith, 
which  is  offered  to  all  men,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  and  which 
is  entirely  gratuitous.' 

The  words  without  the  laio  are  to  be  connected  with  the 
phrase  righteousness  of  God.  It  is  a  righteousness  of  God 
without  the  law,  i.  e.  the  works  of  the  law;  see  the  full  phrase, 
V.  28;  compare  Gal.  2:16.  It  is  a  righteousness  not  attainable 
by  obedience  to  the  law.  Being  testified  by  the  law  and  the 
projjhets.      Testified,  i.  e.  taught,  because  the  teaching  of  in- 

*  "  AixaiotfovT)  ToG  Seou  objective:  virtus  Deo  probata — pietas  omnibus  nu- 
meric absoluta  et  favore  beiiejiciisque  divinis  digna:  Virtue  that  is  pure,  perfect, 
acceptable  to  God,  -worthy  of  reivard,  or,  merit  ivith  God,  acceptableness  to  God, 
conduct,  which  is  regarded  hi/  God  as  meritorious ;  Rom.  1:  17.  3:  21,  22,  25, 
26.  10:  3."— Wahl's  Clavis,  Nov.  Test. 

AixaiorfJvr/  bezeichnete  ihm  (Paul)  das  vollsfandigc  Geeignetscyn  zur  Theil- 
name,  an  alien  Rechten  und  Gutern  der  Thcokratie  und  demnach  dcr  Seligkcit, 
der  ^w'/;.  '  Paul  understands  by  Stxaiodiivr,  perfect  fitness  for  a  participation  of  all 
the  rights  and  blessings  of  the  theocracy  (or  Messiah's  kingdom),  and,  conse- 
quently, of  salvation,  or  ^w^. ' — Neandf.u,  Geschichtc  der  Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  505; 
compare  the  passage  quoted  above,  p.  129. 

So  likewise  Sronn,  in  his  dissertation  on  the  word  (5ixaios,  Opuscula,  Vol.  I.  p. 
213,  214.  After  stating  that  the  righteousness  (i.  e.  probitas  et  beatitiis,  excellence 
and  blessedness),  described  by  Moses  (Rom.  10:  5),  not  being  attainable  by  the 
law,  Paul  proposes  to  believers  another,  viz.  '  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith,' 
or,  more  briefly,  '  the  righteousness  of  faith,'  which  is  '  through  f\iith,'  or  which  is  ol> 
tained  on  the  condition  of  faith,  he  remarks,  "  Quumque  igitur  SixaiodCvr}  '^tlorsug  sit 
diriiiae gratiae  miinus,  quod  non  pet!  potest  nisi  precarium,  ctiam  s'x  0 Sou  (5ixaio(J'ijv/) 
Phil.  3:  9,  brevius  ^ixaiotfuvr)  Qsw,  Rom.  3:21  and  1:17,  nominatur."  That  is, 
"since  'the  righteousness  of  faith'  is  a  gift  of  divine  grace,  and  must  be  sought 
as  a  favour;  it  is  called  also,  '  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,'  Phil.  3:  9,  or,  more 
briefly,  'the  righteousness  of  God,'  Rom.  3:  21  and  1:  17." 


ROMANS  3:  21— 31.  115 

spired  men  was  in  the  form  of  testimony;  it  was  not  the  com- 
munication of  what  they  themselves  had  discovered,  but  a 
declaration  of  what  had  been  delivered  to  them  by  God.  The 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  divide  the  scriptures  into  two  parts, 
the  law  and  the  jn^ophets,  what  did  not  belong  to  the  former 
was  included  under  the  latter.  Hence  the  phrase,  as  here  used, 
is  equivalent  with  the  scriptures ;  see  Matt.  5: 17.  7:  12,  Luke 
16:  10.  Acts  13:  15,  &c.  &c.  That  the  Jewish  scriptures  did 
teach  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification,  Paul  proves  in  the 
next  chapter,  from  the  case  of  Abraham  and  the  testimony  of 
David. 

(22)  Even  the  righteousness  of  God  ivhich  is  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ,  &c.  In  the  preceding  verse,  Paul  had  taught 
negatively,  that  this  righteousness,  which  is  acceptable  and 
available  in  the  sight  of  God,  was  not  to  be  attained  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  he  here  teaches,  1.  That  it  is  to  be  attained 
by  faith  in  Christ.  2.  That  it  is  applicable  to  all  men.  Gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews.  Which  is  by  faitli  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e. 
through,  or  by  means  of  that  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object. 
We  are  not  justified  on  account  of  our  faith,  as  though  faith 
were  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  for  the  ground  is  mentioned 
afterwards;  but  it  is  through  faith.  Such  is  almost  uniformly 
the  force  of  the  Greek  preposition  here  used,  when  connected 
with  the  genitive.  Faith  of  Ctirist  is  of  course  equivalent  to 
faith  in  Christ;  see  Mark  11:  22,  "Have  faith  in  God," 
literally  'of  God;'  Acts  3:  16,  "Through  faith  in  his  name," 
literally  '  of  his  name;'  Gal.  2:  20,  "  I  live  by  faith  of  the  Son 
God,"  &c.  &c. 

Unto  all  and  upon  all  ttiat  believe*  The  prepositions 
rendered  unto  and  ujjon,  do  not  here  express  different  ideas, 
any  more  than  those  rendered  by  and  through,  in  v.  30.  The 
repetition  expresses  intensity.  '  This  righteousness  is  revealed 
or  comes  unto  all,  even  all,  absolutely  all,  without  distinction  of 

*  The  words  xal  i-xi  irccvrag  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  26,  31,  47,  66,  67, 
in  the  Coptic  and  Etliiopic  versions,  and  by  several  of  the  fathers.  Griesbach  has 
left  them  out ;  so  has  Lachmann.  But  they  are  retained  by  most  editors,  as  even 
the  external  evidence  is  in  their  favour ;  and  it  is  much  more  probable  that  some 
transcribers  would  omit  them  as  unnecessary,  than  that  any  should  insert  them  if 
not  genuine.  Besides,  such  repetitions  are  jigreeable  to  Paul's  manner ;  compare 
v.  30  and  Gal.  1:1.  * 


116  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

name  or  nation.'  The  only  limitation  is  the  exercise  of  faith.  It 
is  unto  all  believers.  We  have  here  the  second  attribute  of  the 
righteousness  revealed  in  the  gospel,  mentioned  in  this  verse,  viz. 
its  universal  applicability.  It  is  not  to  be  restricted  to  any  one 
class  of  men,  but  is  as  well  suited  to  the  Gentile  as  the  Jew,  to  the 
bond  as  the  free,  to  the  wise  as  the  unwise,  to  the  poor  as  the 
rich.  The  reason  why  this  righteousness  is  thus  suited  to  all 
men,  is,  that  there  is  no  difference  in  their  moral  state  or  rela- 
tion to  God. 

(23)  For  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God.  These  clauses  express  very  nearly  associated  ideas.  The 
former  presents  more  prominently  the  moral  character  of  men; 
the  latter  its  consequences.  They  are  sinners,  and  have,  there- 
fore, forfeited  the  divine  favour.  Here  again  the  fact  that  men  are 
sinners  is  given  as  a  conclusive  reason  why  justification  can  only 
be  by  faith.  The  word  rendered  glory  has  been  very  variously 
explained.  It  may  signify  approbation,  as  in  John  12:  43, 
"  they  love  the  approbation  of  men,  better  than  the  approbation 
of  God ;"  so  Grotius.  Or  it  may  be  taken  for  the  reward  which 
God  bestows,  so  often  called  in  scripture  glory ;  see  ch.  2:  7. 
Others  again  make  it  equivalent  to  the  term  used  in  v.  27,  and 
explain  the  clause  thus,  '  who  have  failed  of  attaining  any 
ground  of  glorying  before  God.'  This  is  very  forced;  as  is 
also  the  interpretation  which  makes  it  mean  'the  divine  image.' 
The  first  or  second  interpretation,  it  matters  little  which,  is  to 
be  preferred.  As  the  word  rendered  come  short  is  often  used 
in  reference  to  those  who  lose  a  race,  the  clause  may  be  ex- 
plained as  an  allusion  to  that  game.  The  glory  of  God  is  the 
goal  or  the  prize  for  which  men  contend,  and  which  all  have 
failed  to  win.* 

(24)  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  re- 
demptioji  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  apostle  continues  his 
exhibition  of  the  method  of  salvation  by  using  the  participle 
*  being  justified,'  instead  of  the  verb,  'we  are  justified,'  agreeably 
to  a  mode  of  construction  not  unusual  in  Greek,  though  much 
more  frequent  in  the  Hebrew.  He  says  we  are  justified y>Tf/y 
by  his  grace,  that  is,  in  a  manner  which  is  entirely  gratuitous. 

*  A6|a  est  meta,  ad  (juam  contcndimust  id  est,  vita  acterna,  quae  in  gloriac  Dei 
participatione  coiisistit. — Bjsza. 


ROMANS  3:  21—31.  117 

We  have  not  the  slightest  degree  of  merit  to  offer  as  the  ground 
of  our  acceptance.  This  is  the  third  characteristic  of  the  method 
of  justification  which  is  by  the  righteousness  of  God.  Though 
it  is  so  entirely  gratuitous  as  regards  the  sinner,  yet  it  is  in  a 
way  perfectly  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God.  It  is  founded 
on  "  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  that  is,  of  which  he 
is  the  author. 

The  word  translated  redemption  has  two  senses  in  the  New 
Testament.  1.  It  means  properly  'a  deliverance  effected  by 
the  payment  of  a  ransom.'  This  is  its  primary  etymological 
meaning.  2.  It  means  deliverance  simply,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  means  of  its  accomplishment,  whether  by  power 
or  wisdom.  Luke  21 :  28,  "  the  day  of  redemption,  (i.  e.  of  de- 
liverance) draweth  nigh;"  Heb.  11 :  25,  and  perhaps  Rom.  8:23; 
compare  Isaiah  50:  2,  "is  my  hand  shortened  at  all,  that  it 
cannot  redeem,"  &c.  &c.  When  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ, 
as  effecting  our  deliverance  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  it  is 
always  taken  in  its  proper  sense,  deliverance  effected  by  the 
•payment  of  a  ransom*  This  is  evident,  1.  Because  in  no  case 
where  it  is  thus  used,  is  any  thing  said  of  the  precepts,  doctrines, 
or  power  of  Christ,  as  the  means  by  which  the  deliverance  is 
effected;  but  uniformly  his  sufferings  are  mentioned  as  the  ground 
of  deliverance.  Eph.  1 :  7,  "  in  whom  we  have  redemption 
through  his  blood;"  Heb.  9:  15,  "by  means  of  death,  for  the 
redemption  of  transgressions;"  Col.  1.  14.  2.  In  this  passage 
the  nature  of  this  redemption  is  explained  by  the  following 
verse;  it  is  not  by  truth,  nor  the  exhibition  of  excellence,  but 
through  Christ '  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  through  faith  in  his 
blood.'  3.  Equivalent  expressions  fix  the  meaning  of  the  term 
beyond  doubt.  1  Tim.  2 :  6,  "  Who  gave  himself  as  a  ransom 
for  all;"  Matt.  20:  28,  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life 
as  a  ransom  for  many;"  1  Peter  1:18,"  Ye  were  not  redeemed 
with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,"  &c.  &:c.  Accordingly,  Christ  is 
presented  as  a  Redeemer,  not  in  the  character  of  a  teacher  or 
witness,  but  of  a  priest,  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation,  &c.  &c. 

*  Dicitur  dc  libcratione  a  pcccatorum  poenis,  parata  per  Christum,  qni  vitam 
deponens  Xut^ov  quasi  pcrsolvit. — Waul. 

In  Nov.  Test.,  de  redemtione  a  potestate  diaboli,  peccati  et  mortis  per 
sanguinem  Je*u,  in  pretium  redemtionis  soiutum. — Bbltscusjbideb. 


lis  ROMANS  3:  21— 31. 

That  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  i.  e.  which  is  by  him,  as  the  pre- 
position here  rendered  i«,  means  in  places  ahnost  without  num- 
ber; Acts  13:  39,  "by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified,  &c." 
Acts  17:  31,  "by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  &c.  &c, 
Wahl,  p.  523. 

(25)  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through 
fuitfi  in  his  blood,  &c.  This  clause  contains  the  ground  of  our 
deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  of  our  acceptance 
with  God,  and  constitutes  therefore  the  second  step  in  the 
apostles  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  He  had  already 
taught  that  justification  was  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  and 
entirely  gratuitous;  he  now  comes  .to  show  how  it  is  that  this 
exercise  of  mercy  to  the  sinner  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
justice  of  God,  and  the  demands  of  his  law.  The  word  rendered 
hath  set  forth,  also  signifies,  in  its  ground  form,  to  piwposey 
determine,  Rom.  1:13,  compare  8:  28.  If  this  sense  be  adopted 
here,  the  meaning  would  be,  '  whom  God  hath  purposed  or  de- 
creed to  he  a  propitiation.'  But  this  requires  that  the  words  to 
be  should  be  supplied,  for  which  there  is  nothing  to  answer  in 
the  text.  There  is  no  reason  for  departing  from  the  common 
interpretation  which  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense. 

There  are  three  interpretations  of  the  word  rendered  propi- 
tiation which  deserve  attention.  1.  It  is  very  frequently  un- 
derstood to  mean  the  propitiatory,  or  mercy-seat,  over  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  on  which  the  high  priest,  on  the  great  day  of 
atonement,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices.  Here  it  was 
that  God  was  propitiated,  and  manifested  himself  as  reconciled 
to  his  people.  The  ground  of  this  interpretation  is,  that  the 
original  word  here  used,  is  employed  in  tiic  Septuagint  as  the 
designation  of  the  mercy-seat;  Ex.  25:  18, 19,  20,  and  often  else- 
where. The  meaning  would  then  be,  'that  God  had  set  forth  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  mercy-seat,  as  the  ])lace  in  which,  or  the  person  in 
whom,  he  was  propitiated,  and  ready  to  forgive  and  accept  the 
sinner.'  But  the  objections  to  this  interpretation  arc  serious, 
1.  The  use  of  the  word  by  the  Greek  translators  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, probably  arose  from  a  mistake  of  the  proper  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew  term.  The  Hebrew  word  means  j)rojierly  a  cover, 
but  as  the  verb  whence  it  comes  means  literally  to  cover,  and 
metaphorically,  to  atone  for,  to  propitiate,  the  Greek  transla- 
tors incorrectly  rendered  the  noun  iXaffT^^iov,  the  Latin propitia- 


ROMANS  3:  21— 31.  119 

torium,  and  our  translators  the  mercy-seat.  It  is,  therefore,  in 
itself,  a  wrong  use  of  the  Greek  word.  2.  This  interpretation 
is  not  consistent  with  the  analogy  of  scripture.  The  sacred 
writers  are  not  accustomed  to  compare  the  Saviour  to  the  cover 
of  the  ark,  nor  to  illustrate  his  work  by  such  a  reference.  This 
passage,  if  thus  interpreted,  would  stand  alone  in  this  respect. 
3.  According  to  this  view,  there  is  an  obvious  incongruity  in  the 
figure.  It  is  common  to  speak  of  the  blood  of  a  sacrifice,  but 
not  of  the  blood  of  the  mercy-seat.  Besides,  Paul  in  this  very 
clause  speaks  of  '■'■his  blood;"  see  Deylingii  Observationes, 
P.  II.  sect.  41,  and  Krebs'  New  Testament  illustrated  from  the 
writings  of  Josephus. 

The  second  interpretation  supposes  the  word  for  sacrifice 
to  be  understood.  The  word  in  the  text  is  properly  an  adjective, 
and  is  applied  to  any  thing  designed  to  render  God  propitious. 
It,  therefore,  occurs  frequently  in  such  phrases  as  '  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice,'  'propitiatory  monument,'  '  propitiatory  death.' 
(Josephus,  Ant.  XVI.  7,  1.  Lib.  de  Mace.  sect.  17;  see  Krebs  on 
this  verse.)  This  sense  of  the  word  is  greatly  to  be  preferred, 
as  more  consistent  with  the  context,  more  consonant  with  the 
scriptural  mode  of  representation  in  reference  to  this  subject, 
and  perfectly  consistent  with  usage.  The  elliptical  form  of 
expression  is  peculiarly  common  in  terms  relating  to  sacrifices, 
and  offerings;  (see  Koppe  and  Tholuck.)  It  is  only  a  modifi- 
cation of  this  interpretation  to  take  the  neuter  form  of  the  adjec- 
tive here  used,  as  a  vSubstantive,  and  render  it  expiation  or 
propitiation,  as  is  done  in  the  Vulgate,  and  by  Beza.  The 
third  interpretation  takes  the  word  as  a  masculine  substantive, 
and  renders  it  expiator,  '  whom  God  has  set  forth  as  an  expia- 
tor.'  This  also  gives  a  good  sense,  but  is  neither  so  consistent 
with  the  context,  nor  congruous  with  the  figure.  The  meaning, 
then,  of  this  interesting  clause  is,  that  Christ  was  set  forth  in 
view  of  the  intelligent  universe  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  as 
such  is  the  ground  of  the  justification  of  every  one  that  believes. 
Through  faith  in  his  blood.  These  words  may  be  connect- 
ed either  with  the  immediately  preceding  or  with  those  at 
the  beginning  of  v.  24.  According  to  the  former  method, 
the  sense  is,  'Christ  is  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,' 
that  is,  which  is  available  to  those  only  who  exercise  this  faith, 
and  on  this  condition.    According  to  the  latter, '  We  are  justified 


120  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  (we  are  justi- 
fied) through  faith  in  his  blood.'  So  that  this  clause  is  co- 
ordinate with  the  last  member  of  v.  24,  and  explanatory  of  it. 
The  first  method  appears  the  more  simple  and  natural  of  the 
two. 

This  whole  passage  is  of  peculiar  interest  and  importance,  as 
exhibiting  very  clearly  the  nature  of  justification,    Paul  teaches 
that  we  are  justified  in  a  manner  which  is  entirely  of  grace, 
without  any  merit  of  our  own;  through,  or  by  means  of  faith 
and  on  the  ground  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ 
It  is  evident,  from  this  statement,  that  he  intended  to  exclude 
from  all  participation  in  the  merit  of  being  the  ground  of  our 
acceptance  with  God,  not  only  those  works  performed  in  obe- 
dience to  the  law,  and  with  a  legal  spirit,  but  those  which  flow 
from  faith  and  a  renewed  heart.     The  part  assigned  to  faith  in 
the  work  of  our  reconciliation  to  God,  is  that  of  an  instrument; 
it  apprehends  or  appropriates  the  meritorious  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance, the  work  or  righteousness  of  Christ.     It  is  not  itself 
that  ground,  nor  the  means  of  attaining  an  inherent  righteous- 
ness acceptable  to  God.     This  is  obvious,  1.  Because  our  justi- 
fication would  not  then  be  gratuitous,  or  without  works.     Paul 
would  then  teach  the  very  reverse  of  the  doctrine  which  he  has 
been  labouring  to  establish,  viz.  that  it  is  not  on  account  of 
works  of  righteousness,  i.  e.  works  of  the  highest  order  of  ex- 
cellence, that  we  are  accepted,  since  these  works  would  then  be 
the  real  ground  of  our  acceptance.     2.  Because  we  are  said  to 
he  justified  by  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object,  by  faith  in 
his  blood,  by  faith  in  him  as  a  sacrifice.    These  expressions  can- 
not possibly  mean,  that  faith  in  Christ  is,  or  produces,  a  state 
of  mind  which  is  acceptable  to  God.     Faith  in  a  sacrifice  is, 
by  the  very  force  of  the  terms,  reliance  on  a  sacrifice.    It  would 
be  to  contradict  the  sentiment  of  the  whole  ancient  and  Jewish 
world,  to  make  the  design  of  a  sacrifice  the  production  of  a 
state  of  mind  acceptable  to  the  Being  worshipped,  which  moral 
state  was  to  be  the  ground  of  acceptance.     There  is  no  more 
pointed  way  of  denying  that  we  are  justified  on  account  of  the 
state  of  our  own  hearts,  or  the  character  of  our  own  acts,  than 
by  saying,  that  we  are  justified  by  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 
This  latter  declaration  places,  of  necessity,  the  ground  of  ac- 
ceptance out  of  ourselves;  it  is  something  done  for  us,  not 


ROMANS  3:  21—31.  121 

something  experienced,  or  produced  in  us,  or  performed  by  us. 
There  is  no  rule  of  interpretation  more  obvious  and  more  im- 
portant, than  that  A^ich  requires  us  to  understand  the  language 
of  a  writer  in  th6  seilse  in  which  lie  knew  he  would  be  under- 
stood by  the  persons  to  whom  he  wrote.  To  explain,  therefore, 
the  language  of  the  apostle  in  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
and  the  mode  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  otherwise  than  in 
accordance  with  the  universally  prevalent  opinions  on  the  na- 
ture of  sacrifices,  is  to  substitute  our  philosophy  of  religion 
for  the  inspired  teachings  of  the  sacred  writers. 

To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God.      Having 
stated  the  nature  and  ground  of  the  gospel  method  of  justifica- 
tion, he  comes,  in  this  clause,  to  state  its  object.     '  God  has  set 
forth  Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  to  declare  his  righteous- 
ness.'    It  should  be  remembered  that  the  object  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  being  very  comprehensive,  is  very  variously  presented 
in  the  word  of  God.     In  other  words,  the  death  of  Christ  an- 
swers a  great  number  of  infinitely  important  ends  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  God.     It  displays  ''  his  manifold  wisdom,"  Eph.  3: 
1 0,  1 1 ;  it  was  designed  "  to  purify  unto  himself  a  people  zealous 
of  good  works,"  Tit.  2:  14;  to  break  down  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  Eph.  2:  15;  to  effect  the  recon- 
ciliation of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  unto  God,  Eph.  2:  16;  "to 
deliver  us  from  this  present  evil  world,"  Gal.  1:4;  to  secure 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  Eph.  1 :  7;  to  vindicate  his  ways  to  men 
in  so  long  passing  by  or  remitting  their  sins,  Rom.  3:  25;  to  re- 
concile the  exercise  of  mercy  with  the  requirements  of  justice, 
V.  26,  &c.  &c.     These  ends  are  not  inconsistent,  but  perfectly 
harmonious.     The  end  here  specially  mentioned,  is  to  declare 
his  righteousness.     These  words  here,  as  elsewhere,  are  vari- 
ously explained.     1.  They  are  understood  of  some  one  of  the 
moral  attributes  of  God,  as  his  veracity,  by  Locke;  or  his  mercy, 
by  Grotius,  Koppe  and  many  of  the  moderns.     Both  of  these 
interpretations  are  forced,  because  they  assign  very  unusual 
meanings  to  the  word  righteousness,  and  meanings  little  suited 
to  the  context     2.  Most  commentators,  who  i-ender  the  phrase 
'righteousness,  or  justification  of  God,'  in  ch.  1:  17.  3:  21,  God's 
method  of  justification,  adopt  that  sense  here.     The  meaning 
would  then  be,  that '  God  had  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation, 

16 


122  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

to  exhibit  his  method  of  justifying  sinners,  both  in  reference  to 
the  sins  committed  under  the  former  dispensation,  and  under  the 
new.'  3.  The  great  majority  of  commentators  give  it  the  sense 
of  the  general  rectitude  of  God.  This  is  recommended  by  the 
consideration  that  this  is  the  common  meaning  of  the  word 
righteousness,  that  the  phrase  here  used  must  be  so  understood 
in  ch.  2 :  5,  where  '  the  unrighteousness  of  men  is  said  to  com- 
mend the  righteousness  of  God,'  and  especially,  that  in  the  next 
verse,  Paul  subjoins  the  explanatory  clause,  "  that  he  might  be 
just,  and  the  justifier  of  every  one  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 
This,  as  Calvin  remarks,  is  Paul's  own  definition  of  "  the  right- 
eousness of  God,"  of  which  he  is  here  speaking.  The  meaning 
of  the  clause  then  is,  that  '  God  has  set  forth  Christ,  as  a  propi- 
tiation, to  make  it  plain  that  he  is  just,  or  righteous  in  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.'  His  pardoning  mercy  is  thus  vindicated  from 
all  appearance  of  interfering  with  the  demands  of  justice. 

For  the  remission  of  sins.  The  preposition  which  is  here 
rendered  for,  may  be  variously  explained.  1.  It  not  unfre- 
quently  with  the  accusative,  the  case  by  which  it  is  here  fol- 
lowed, has  the  force  which  more  properly  belongs  to  it  with 
the  genitive,  i.  e.  through.  John  6:  57,  "  I  live  through  the 
Father,"  Rom.  2:  24,  &c.  So  Grotius,  Beza  and  others.  This 
would  suit  the  context,  if  righteousness  meant  mercy,  '  To 
exhibit  his  mercy  by  means  of  the  remission  of  sins.'  But  this 
explanation  of  the  word  '  righteousness,'  has  been  shown  above 
to  be  objectionable.  2.  It  is  taken  to  mean  as  to,  as  it  regards. 
This  also  gives  a  good  sense,  '  To  declare  his  righteousness,  as 
to,  or  as  it  regards  the  remission  of  sins.'  So  Raphelius  (Ob- 
servationes,  &c.  p.  241),  who  quotes  Polybius  Lib.  5,  ch.  24, 
p.  517,  in  support  of  this  interpretation.  This  view  is  given  by 
Prof.  Stuart.  But  the  preposition  in  question  very  rarely  if 
ever  has  this  force.  No  such  meaning  is  assigned  to  it  by  Wahl, 
Bretschneidcr,  or  Winer.  3.  The  common  force  of  the  prepo- 
sition is  retained,  on  account  of  This  clause  would  then  assign 
the  ground  or  reason  of  the  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  It  became  necessary  that  there  should  be  this  exhibition, 
because  God  had  overlooked  and  pardoned  sin  from  the  begin- 
ning. This  is  the  most  natural  and  satisfactory  interpretation 
of  the  passage.  So  Bengel,  Walil  and  many  others.  4.  Others 
again  make  tiie  jireposilion  express  the  final  cause   or  object, 


ROMANS  3:  21—31.  123 

*  To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  sake  of  the  remission  of 
sins,  i.  e.  that  sins  might  be  remitted.'  So  Calvin*  and  Eisner. 
But  this  is  a  very  questionable  force  of  the  preposition  here 
used;  see  Winer's  Gram.  p.  339.  The  third  interpretation, 
therefore,  just  mentioned,  is  to  be  preferred.  The  word  rendered 
remission,  more  strictly  mea.ns  pretermission,  a  passing  hy,  or 
overlooking.  Paul  repeatedly  uses  the  proper  term  for  remis- 
sion, as  in  Eph.  I:  7.  Heb.  9:  22,  &c.,  but  the  word  here  used, 
occurs  no  where  else  in  the  New  Testament.  Many,  therefore, 
consider  the  selection  of  this  particular  term  as  designed  to 
express  the  idea,  that  sins  committed  before  the  advent  of  Christ 
might  more  properly  be  said  to  be  overlooked,  than  actually 
pardoned,  until  the  sacrifice  of  the  Redeemer  had  been  com- 
pleted; see  Wolf's  Curae.  Reference  is  made  to  Acts  17:  30, 
where  God  is  said  to  have  overlooked  the  times  of  ignorance. 
But  as  the  word  used  by  the  apostle  is  actually  used  to  express 
the  idea  of  reniissson  in  Greek  writers  (see  Eisner),  the  majo- 
rity of  commentators  adopt  that  meaning  here. 

The  words  that  arej)ast,  seem  distinctly  to  refer  to  the  times 
before  the  advent  of  Christ.  This  is  plain  from  their  opposition 
to  the  expression,  at  this  time,  in  the  next  verse,  and  from  a 
comparison  with  the  parallel  passage  in  Heb.  9:  15,  "  He  is  the 
Mediator  for  the  redemption  of  sins  that  were  under  the  first 
testament."  The  words  rendered  through  the  forbearance  of 
God,  may  be  variously  connected  and  explained.  1.  They  may 
be  connected  with  the  words  just  mentioned,  and  the  meaning 
be,  '  Sins  that  are  past,  or,  which  were  committed  during  the 
forbearance  of  God;'  see  Acts  17:  20,  where  the  times  before 
the  advent  are  described  in  much  the  same  manner.  2.  Or 
they  may  be  taken,  as  by  our  translators,  as  giving  the  cause  of 
the  remission  of  these  sins,  '  They  were  remitted,  or  overlooked 
through  the  divine  forbearance  or  mercy.'  The  former  inter- 
pretation is  better  suited  to  the  context.  The  meaning  of  the 
wdiole  verse,  therefore,  is,  '  God  has  set  forth  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
pro])itiatory  sacrifice,  to  vindicate  his  righteousness  or  justice, 
on  account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  committed  under  the 
former  dispensation,'  and  not  under  the  former  dispensation  only, 

•   Tantunilem  valet  praepositio  causalis,  acsi  dixisset,  rcniissionis  ergo,  vel  in 
hiinc  fmein  ut  peccata  dcleret. 


124  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

but  which  are  committed  at  the  present  time,  as  the  apostle 
immediately  adds, 

(26)  To  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time,  his  righteousness,  &c. 
This  verse  is  an  amplification  and  explanation  of  the  preceding. 
The  words  there  and  here  rendered  to  declare,  properly  mean 
for  the  manifestation.  Paul  changes  the  preposition  without 
altering  the  sense,  as  both  (s/g  and  ■Trerg)  are  familiarly  used  to 
express  the  design  or  object  for  which  any  thing  is  done;  see 
Winer,  p.  337,  342,  This  clause  is  evidently  co-ordinate  with 
the  second  member  of  the  preceding  verse.  '  Christ  was  set 
forth  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  on  account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  old,  for  the  ex- 
hibition of  his  righteousness  at  this  time,  &c.'  There  are  two 
purposes  to  be  answered  by  this  sacrifice,  the  vindication  of  the 
character  of  God  in  passing  by  former  sins,  and  in  passing  by 
them  now,  ^flt  this  time,  therefore,  as  opposed  to  the  time  '  of 
forbearance,'  is  the  gospel  dispensation. 

That  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  ivhich  be- 
lievetJi  in  Jesus.  This  clause  is,  as  before  remarked,  the  ex- 
planation and  definition  of  the  righteousness  of  God  just  spoken 
of.  It  depends,  in  sense,  upon  the  first  clause  of  the  25th  verse, 
'  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  in  order 
that  he  might  be  just  in  the  justification  of  those  that  believe.' 
It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  this  clause  expresses  more  definite- 
ly the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the  phrase  "  to  declare 
his  righteousness."  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
manifestation  of  the  righteousness  or  justice  of  God,  that  is,  that 
he  might  be  just,  although  the  justifier  of  the  ungodl3\  The 
word  just  expresses  the  idea  of  uprightness  generally,  of 
being  or  doing  what  the  nature  of  the  case  demands.  But 
when  spoken  of  the  conduct  of  a  judge,  and  in  reference  to  his 
treatment  of  sin,  it  must  mean  more  specifically  that  modi- 
fication of  general  rectitude,  which  requires  that  sin  should  be 
treated  according  to  its  true  nature,  that  the  demands  of  law  or 
justice  should  not  be  disregarded.  A  judge  is  unjust  when  he 
allows  a  criminal  to  be  pronounced  righteous,  and  treated  ac- 
cordingly. On  tlic  otiier  hand,  he  acts  justly  when  he  pro- 
nounces the  olfender  guilty,  and  secures  the  infliction  of  the 
penalty  which  the  law  denounces.  What  the  apostle  means  to 
say,  is,  that  there  is  no  such  disregard  to  the  claims  of  justice 


ROMANS  3:21— 31.  125 

in  the  justification  of  the  sinner  who  believes  in  Christ.  This 
is  seen  and  acknowledged,  when  it  is  known  that  he  is  justi- 
fied neither  on  account  of  his  own  acts  or  character,  nor  by  a 
mere  sovereign  dispensing  with  the  demands  of  the  law,  but  on 
the  ground  of  a  complete  satisfaction  rendered  by  his  substi- 
tute, i.  e.  on  the  ground  of  the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ. 
The  gratuitous  nature  of  this  justification  is  not  at  all  affected 
by  its  proceeding  on  the  ground  of  this  perfect  satisfaction.  It 
is,  to  the  sinner,  still  the  most  undeserved  of  all  favours,  to 
which  he  not  only  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  personal  claim,  but 
the  very  reverse  of  which  he  has  most  richly  merited.  It  is 
thus  that  justice  and  mercy  are  harmoniously  united  in  the  sin- 
ner's justification.  Justice  is  no  less  justice,  although  mercy 
has  her  perfect  work;  and  mercy  is  no  less  mercy,  although  jus- 
tice is  completely  satisfied. 

'  Just  and  the  justifier,  &c.'  In  the  simple  language  of  the  Old 
Testament,  propositions  and  statements  are  frequently  connect- 
ed by  the  copulative  conjunction  whose  logical  relation  would 
be  more  definitely  expressed  by  various  particles  in  other  lan- 
guages; as  Malachi  2:  14,  "Against  whom  thou  hast  dealt 
treacherously,  and  she  was  thy  companion,"  i.  e.  although  she 
was  thy  companion.  "  They  spake  in  my  name,  and  (although) 
I  sent  them  not;"  see  Gesenius'  Lexicon.  In  like  manner  the 
corresponding  particle  in  the  Greek  Testament  is  used  with 
scarcely  less  latitude.  Matt.  12:  5,  "  The  priests  profane  the 
Sabbath,  and  (and  yet)  are  blameless;  Rom.  1:  13,  "  I  purposed 
to  come  unto  you,  and  (but)  was  let  hitherto;"  Heb.  3:  9, 
"  Proved  me,  and  (although  they)  saw  my  w^orks;"  see  Wahl's 
Lex.  and  Winer's  Gram.  p.  365.  So,  in  the  present  instance, 
it  may  be  rendered  ''That  God  might  be  just,  and  yet,  or  al- 
though the  justifier,  &c."  Him  which  believeth  in  Jesus, 
literally  'Him  who  is  of  the  faith  of  Jesus;"  so  Gal.  2:  7, 
"They  which  are  of  faith,"  for  believers;  Gal.  2:  12,  "They 
of  the  circumcision,"  i.  e.  the  circumcised;  see  Rom.  2:  8. 
4:  12,  &c.  &c.  Faith  of  Jesus,  faith  of  Jesus  is  the  object;  see 
v.  22.  Our  version,  therefore,  expresses  the  sense  accurately. 
He  whom  God  is  just  in  justifying,  is  the  man  who  relies  on 
Jesus  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 

(27)  JVhei-e  is  boasting  tlien?     It  is  excluded.     By  what 


126  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

laiv  ?  of  works  ?  Nay;  but  by  the  law  of  faith.     In  this  and 
the  following  verses,  the  apostle  presents  the  tendency  and  re- 
sults of  the  glorious  plan  of  salvation,  which  he  had  just  un- 
folded.    It  excludes  boasting,  v.  27,     It  presents  God   in  his 
true  character,  as  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  the  Jews,  vs,  29,  30;  and  it  establishes  the  law,  v,  31,     The 
word  rendered  boasting,  is  used  to  express  the  idea  of  self- 
gratulation  with  or  without  sufficient  reason.     In  the  former 
case,  it  is  properly  rendered  rejoicing,  as  when  Paul  speaks  of 
the  Thessalonians  being  his  "  crown  of  rejoicing,"     In  the  lat- 
ter, the  word  boasting  best  answers  to  its  meaning.    The  word 
sometimes  means  the  act  of  boasting  or  rejoicing;  at  others, 
by  metonymy,  the  ground  or  reason  of  boasting,  as  in  Rom, 
15:  17,     Either  sense    suits  this  passage.     It  may   mean  all 
boasting  is  prevented,  or  ail  ground  of  boasting  is  excluded. 
Paul  means  to  say  that  the  result  of  the  gospel  plan  of  salva- 
tion is  to  prevent  all  self-approbation,  self-gratulation  and  ex- 
altation on  the  part  of  the  sinner.    He  is  presented  as  despoiled 
of  all  merit,  and  as  deserving  the  displeasure  of  God.     Pie  can 
attribute,  in  no  degree,  his  deliverance  from  this  displeasure  to 
himself,  and  he  cannot  exalt  himself  cither  in  the  presence  of 
God,  or  in  comparison  with  his  fellow-sinners.    As  sin  is  odious 
in  the  sight  of  God,  it  is  essential,  in  any  scheme  of  mercy, 
that  the  sinner  should  be  made  to  feel  this,  and  that  nothing 
done  by  or  for  him  in  any  measure  diminishes  his  personal  ill- 
desert  on  account  of  his  transgressions.     This  result  obviously 
could  not  follow  from  any  plan  of  justification,  which  placed 
the  ground  of  the  sinners  acceptance  in  himself,  or  his  peculiar 
advantages  of  birth  or  ecclesiastical  connexion;  but  it  is  effec- 
tually secured  by  that  plan  of  justitication,  which   not  only 
places  the  ground  of  his  acceptance  entirely  out  of  liimsclf,  but 
which  also  requires,  as  the  very  condition  of  that  acceptance, 
an  act  involving  a  penitent  acknowledgement  of  personal  ill- 
desert,  and  exclusive  dependence  on  tlie  merit  of  another. 

The  expressions  "by  what  law  ?"  "the  law  of  works,"  and 
"law  of  faith,"  especially  the  last,  arc  peculiar,  as  the  word  law 
is  not  used  in  its  ordinary  sense.  The  general  idea  of  a  rule  of 
action,  however,  is  retained.  '  By  what  rule  ?  By  that  which 
requires  works  ?  Nay;  by  that  which  requires  faith;'  compare 
ch.  9:  31, 


ROMANS  3:  21—31.  127 

(28)  Therefore*  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  The  word  rendered  we 
conclude,  means,  more  properly,  ive  are  persuaded;  see  8:  18. 
2  Cor.  10:  7.  This  verse  may  be  considered  as  immediately 
connected  with  the  preceding,  and  as  stating  a  persuasion, 
founded,  among  other  reasons,  on  the  truth  there  presented. 
The  idea  would  then  be,  '  We  are  persuaded  that  the  doctrine 
of  justification  is  true,  because  it  thus  effectually  excludes  all 
boasting.'  Or  it  may  express  the  conclusion  from  the  whole 
of  the  preceding  exhibition;  which  is  probably  the  correct 
view  of  its  connexion.  The  great  truth  of  which  Paul  declares 
his  firm  conviction,  therefore,  is,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  means 
of  faith,  and  not  on  account  of  obedience  to  the  law.t 

(29,  30)  Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  is  he  not  also  of 
the  Gentiles?  Yes,  of  the  Gentiles  also;  seeing  it  is  one 
God  who  shall  justify ,  &c.  We  have  here  the  second  result  of 
the  gospel  method  of  justification;  it  presents  God  as  equally  the 
God  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  Jews.  He  is  such,  because  '  it  is  one 
God  who  justifies  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  the  uncircumci- 
sion  through  faith.'  He  deals  with  both  classes  on  precisely  the 
same  principles;  he  pursues,  with  regard  to  both,  the  same  plan, 
and  offers  salvation  to  both  on  exactly  the  same  terms.  There 
is,  therefore,  in  this  doctrine,  the  foundation  laid  for  a  universal 
religion,  which  may  be  preached  to  every  creature  under  heaven; 
which  need  not,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Jewish  system,  be 
confined  to  any  one  sect  or  nation.     This  is  the  only  doctrine 

*  Instead  of  ouv,  the  MSS.  A.  D.  F.  G,  5,  9,  33,  38,  47,  the  Vulgate  and  Coptic 
versions,  with  several  of  the  fathers,  read  ya^.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Gries- 
hach.  Mill,  Bengel,  Knapp,  and  Laclnnann.  The  sense  may  then  be  jM-esented 
thus,  '  Boasting  is  excluded  by  the  law  of  faith,  for  we  are  persuaded  that  a  man  is 
justified,  &c.' 

^Luther  rendered  the  word  ■ttiVtSi,  allein  durch  den  Glauben,  by  faith  alone, 
whicii  produced  a  great  outcry  among  many  of  his  CathoUc  opposers,  though  the 
sentiment  is  plainly  implied  here,  as  well  as  in  Gal.  2:  16,  and  every  where  else 
where  Paul  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  justiiication  at  all.  The  Catholic  versions, 
even  before  Luther,  insert  the  word  alone.  So  in  the  Nuremburg  Bible,  1483, 
"Nur  diu-ch  den  Glauben."  And  the  Itahan  Bibles  of  Geneva,  1476,  and  of 
Venice,  1538,  per  la  sola  fede.  The  fathers  often  use  the  expression  'man  is 
justified  by  faith  alone,'  so  that  Erasmus  says,  (De  Ratione  Concionandi,  L.  III.) 
"Vox  sola,  tot  clamoribus  lapidata  hoc  saeculo  in  Luthero,  rcverenter  in  Pa- 
tribus  auditur."     See  Koppe  and  Tholiick  on  this  verse. 


128  ROMANS  3:  21—31. 

which  suits  the  cliaracter  of  God,  and  his  relation  to  all  his 
intelligent  creatures  upon  earth.  God  is  a  universal,  and  not  a 
national  God;  and  this  is  a  method  of  salvation  universally 
applicable.  These  sublime  truths  are  so  familiar  to  our  minds 
that  they  have,  in  a  measure,  lost  their  power;  but  as  to  the 
Jew,  enthralled  all  his  life  in  his  narrow  national  and  religious 
prejudices,  they  must  have  expanded  his  whole  soul  with  un- 
wonted emotions  of  wonder,  gratitude  and  joy.  We  Gentiles 
may  now  look  up  to  heaven,  and  confidently  say,  "  Thou  art 
our  father,  though  Abraham  be  ignorant  of  us,  and  though 
Israel  acknowledge  us  not.'' 

The  expressions  '  hy  faith,'  and  '  through  faith,'  evidently 
do  not  differ  in  their  meaning,  as  Paul  uses  them  indiscrimi- 
nately, sometimes  the  one,  as  in  1:  17.  3:  20.  4:  16,  &c.  &c.,  and 
sometimes  the  other,  as  in  3:  22,  25.  Gal.  2:16,  &c.  &c.,  and  as 
each  of  the  prepositions  employed  in  the  original  is  used  to  ex- 
press the  means  by  which  any  thing  is  done. 

(31)  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?    God 
forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the  law.    This  verse  states  the  third 
result  of  this  method  of  salvation;  instead  of  invalidating,  it 
establishes  the  law.     As  Paul  uses  the  word  law  in  so  many 
senses,  it  is  doubtful  which   one  of  them  is  here  principally 
intended.     In  every  sense,  however,  the  declaration  is  true.    If 
the  law  means  the  Old  Testament  generally,  then  it  is  true, 
for  the  gospel  method  of  justification  contradicts  no  one  of  its 
statements,  is  inconsistent  with  no  one  of  its  doctrines,  and  in- 
validates no  one  of  its  promises,  but  is  harmonious  with  all,  and 
confirmatory  of  the  whole.     If  it  means  the  Mosaic  institutions 
specially,  these  were  shadows  of  which  Christ  is  the  substance. 
That  law  is  abolished,  not  by  being  pronounced  spurious  or 
invalid,  but  by  having  met  its  accomplishment,  and  answered 
its  design  in  the  gospel.     What  it  taught  and  promised,  the 
gospel  also  teaches  and  promises,  only  in   clearer  and  fuller 
measure.     If  it  means  the  moral  law,  which  no  doubt  was  pro- 
minently intended,  still  it  is  not  invalidated,  but  established. 
No  moral  obligation  is  weakened,  no  penal  sanction  disregarded. 
The  precepts  are  enforced  Ijy  new  and  stronger  motives,  and 
the  penalty  is  answered  in  him,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree.     To  whom  be  glory  now  and  forever. 


ROMANS  3:  21—31.  129 

Doctri7ies. 

1.  The  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old,  no  less  than  of  the  New  Testament,  v.  21. 

2.  Justification  is  pronouncing  one  to  be  just,  and  treating 
him  accordingly,  on  the  ground  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
have  been  satisfied  concerning  him,  vs.  24,  25,  26. 

3.  The  ground  of  justification  is  not  our  own  merit,  nor 
faith,  nor  evangelical  obedience;  not  the  work  of  Christ  in  us, 
but  his  work  for  us,  i.  e.  his  obedience  unto  death,  v.  25. 

4.  An  act  may  be  perfectly  gratuitous  as  it  regards  its  object, 
and  at  the  same  time  proceed  on  the  ground  of  a  complete  satis- 
faction to  the  demands  of  the  law.  Thus  justification  is  gratui- 
tous, not  because  those  demands  are  unsatisfied,  but  because  it 
is  granted  to  those  who  have  no  personal  ground  of  recom- 
mendation, vs.  24,  26. 

5.  God  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all  his  own  acts.  To  declare 
his  glory  is  the  highest  and  best  end  which  he  can  propose  for 
himself  or  his  creatures,  v.  25. 

6.  The  atonement  does  not  consist  in  a  display  to  others  of 
the  divine  justice;  this  is  one  of  its  designs  and  results,  but  it  is 
such  a  display  only  by  being  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God. 
It  is  not  a  symbol  or  illustration,  but  a  satisfaction,  v.  26. 

7.  All  true  doctrine  tends  to  humble  men  and  to  exalt  God; 
and  all  true  religion  is  characterized  by  humility  and  rever- 
ence, V.  27. 

8.  God  is  a  universal  Father,  and  all  men  are  brethren, 
vs.  29,  30. 

9.  The  law  of  God  is  immutable.  Its  precepts  are  always 
binding,  and  its  penalty  must  be  inflicted  either  on  the  sinner 
or  his  substitute.  When,  however,  it  is  said  that  the  penalty  of 
the  law  is  inflicted  on  the  Redeemer,  as  the  sinner's  substitute, 
or,  in  the  language  of  scripture,  that  "  he  was  made  a  curse  for 
us,"  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  he  suffered  the  same  kind  of 
evils  (as  remorse,  &c.)  which  the  sinner  w^ould  have  suffered. 
The  law  threatens  no  specific  kind  of  evil  as  its  penalty.  The 
term  death  in  scripture  designates  any  or  all  the  evils  inflicted 
in  punishment  of  sin.  And  the  penalty,  or  curse  of  the  law 
(in  the  language  of  the  bible),  is  any  evil  judicially  inflicted  in 

17 


130  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

satisfaction  of  the  demands  of  justice.  To  say  that  Christ  suf- 
fered, therefore,  to  satisfy  the  law;  to  declare  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  or  that  he  might  be  just  in  justifying  him  that 
believes  in  Jesus;  that  he  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law,  are 
all  equivalent  expressions,  v.  31. 

Remarks, 

1.  As  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  bible  is  justification  by  faith, 
so  the  turning  point  in  the  soul's  history,  the  saving  act,  is  the 
reception  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  v.  25. 

2.  All  modes  of  preaching  must  he  erroneous,  which  do  not 
lead  sinners  to  feel  that  the  great  thing  to  be  done,  and  done 
first,  is  to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  turn  unto  God 
through  him.  And  all  religious  experience  must  be  defective, 
which  does  not  embrace  distinctly  a  sense  of  the  justice  of  our 
condemnation,  and  a  conviction  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  work 
of  Christ,  and  an  exclusive  reliance  upon  it  as  such,  v.  2S. 

3.  As  God  proposes  his  own  glory  as  the  end  of  all  that  he 
does,  so  ought  we  to  have  that  glory  as  the  constant  and  com- 
manding object  of  pursuit,  v.  25. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  atonement  produces  in  us  its  proper  effect, 
when  it  leads  us  to  see  and  feel  that  God  is  just;  that  he  is  in- 
finitely gracious;  that  we  are  deprived  of  all  ground  of  boast- 
ing; that  the  way  of  salvation,  which  is  open  for  us,  is  open  for 
all  men;  and  that  the  motives  to  all  duty,  instead  of  being 
weakened,  are  enforced  and  multiplied,  vs.  25 — 31. 

5.  In  the  gospel  all  is  harmonious;  justice  and  mercy,  as  it 
regards  God;  freedom  from  the  law,  and  the  strongest  obliga- 
tions to  obedience,  as  it  regards  men,  v.  25,  31. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Contents. 

The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  faith.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first, 
from  V.  1  to  17  inclusive,  contains  the  argumentative  portion. 
The  second,  v.  18  to  2S,  is  an  illustration  of  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham. 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  131 


CHAP.  4:  1—17. 


Jinalysis. 

Paul,  from  the  21st  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  had  been 
setting  forth  the  gospel  method  of  salvation.  That  this  is  the 
true  method  he  now  proves,  1.  From  the  fact  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  faith,  vs.  1 — 5.  That  this  was  really  the  case 
he  shows,  first,  because  otherwise  Abraham  would  have  had 
ground  of  boasting,  even  in  the  sight  of  God,  v.  2;  second,  be- 
cause the  scriptures  expressly  declare  that  he  was  justified  by 
faith,  v.  8. 

Verses  4,  5,  are  designed  to  show  that  being  justified  by 
faith,  is  tantamount  with  being  justified  gratuitously,  and,  there- 
fore, all  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  gratuitous  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  may  be  fairly  cited  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith. 

2.  On  this  principle  he  adduces  Ps.  32:  1,  2,  as  his  second 
argument,  for  there  David  speaks,  not  of  rewarding  the  right- 
eous as  such,  or  for  their  righteousness,  but  of  the  free  accept- 
ance of  the  unworthy,  vs.  6 — 8. 

3.  The  third  argument  is  designed  to  show  that  circumcision 
is  not  a  necessary  condition  of  justification,  from  the  fact  that 
Abraham  was  justified  before  he  was  circumcised;  and,  there- 
fore, is  the  head  and  father  of  all  believers,  whether  circumcised 
or  not,  vs.  9 — 12. 

4.  The  fourth  argument  is  from  the  nature  of  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  in  which  the  promise  was  made  on  the 
condition  of  faith,  and  not  of  legal  obedience,  vs.  13,  14.  5.  And 
the  fifth,  from  the  nature  of  the  law,  vs.  15 — 17. 

Commentary. 

(1)  What  shall  we  then  say  that  Jihraham,  our  father 
as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found?  The  connexion  of 
this  verse  with  the  preceding  train  of  reasoning  is  obvious.  Paul 
had  taught  that  we  are  justified  by  faith;  as  well  in  confirmation 
of  this  doctrine,  as  to  anticipate  an  objection  from  the  Jew,  he 
refers  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  '  How  was  it  then  with  Abra- 
ham ?     How  did  he  obtain  justification  ?' 

The  words  rendered  as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  may  be  more 


132  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

properly  rendered  as  fo,  or  through  the  flesh.  And  instead 
of  being  connected  with  the  word  father,  they  should  stand  at 
the  end  of  the  verse,  '  what  hath  Abraham  our  father  found 
through  the  flesh  ?'  Such  is  their  position  in  the  original:  and 
although  the  sense  is  good,  which  is  afforded  by  connecting 
them  as  in  our  version,  yet  the  Greek  will  hardly  admit  of  it. 

The  word  ^e^A  in  this  connexion  is  variously  explained.  It 
is  rendered  by  some*  naturalh/,  by  himself;  and  to  the  same 
amount  by  Grotius,  by  his  own  poivers.  This,  however,  is, 
confessedly,  a  very  unusual  signification  of  the  term.  Others 
again  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  circumcision;  'through  the 
flesh,'  is  then  equivalent  to  '  circumcision  which  is  in  the  flesh.' 
But  there  is  no  ground  for  this  specific  reference  in  the  context. 
Paul  often  uses  the  word  flesh  in  a  general  way  for  every  thing 
external,  relating  to  ceremonies,  legal  observances,  &c.;  see  Gal. 
G:  12,  "As  many  as  desire  to  make  a  fair  show  in  the  flesh;"  Gal. 
3:3,"  Having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made  perfect  by 
the  flesh;"  Phil.  3:  3,  4,  where  Paul  says  he  'has  no  confidence  in 
the  flesh,'  and  adds,  "  If  any  other  man  thinketh  he  hath  whereof 
to  glory  in  the  flesh,  I  more."  He  then  enumerates  his  Hebrew 
descent,  his  being  a  Pharisee,  his  blameless  legal  righteousness, 
as  all  included  in  this  comprehensive  expression.  By  the  term, 
in  this  instance,  is  to  be  understood  all  the  advantages  of  Abra- 
ham, and  all  his  works,  as  the  context  shows.  The  point  of  the 
apostle's  question  is,  '  Has  Abraham  obtained  justification  or  the 
favour  of  God  by  the  flesh?'  To  this  a  negative  answer  is 
supposed,  for  which  the  next  verse  assigns  the  reason,  '  For  if 
Abraham  was  justified  by  works,  &c.'  The  phrase  by  works, 
therefore,  is  substituted  for  through  the  flesh,  as  being,  in  this 
case,  perfectly  equivalent  to  it. 

(2)  For  if  Jibraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  God.  The  apostle's  mode 
of  reasoning  is  so  concise  as  often  to  leave  some  of  the  steps  of 
his  argument  to  be  supplied,  which,  however,  are  almost  always 
sufiicicntly  obvious  from  the  context.  As  just  remarked,  a 
negative  answer  is  to  be  supposed  to  the  question  in  the  first 

•  Quid  diccmu.s  Abraliam  patrem  nostrum  invenisse  sccumhim  carncm  1  quidam 
interpretcs  quaeri  putant  quid  secundum  camem  adeptus  sit  Abraham.  Quae  ex- 
positio  si  piaccat,  tantundem  valobit  secundum  cainom,  ac  naturaliter,  vel  ex  scipso. 
Probabile  tamcn  est  epitheti  loco  Patri  conjungi. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  133 

verse.  Abraham  has  not  attained  the  favour  of  God  through 
the  flesh.  The  force  of  for  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  is 
then  obvious,  as  introducing  the  reason  for  this  answer.  The 
passage  itself  is  very  concise,  and  the  latter  clause  admits  of 
different  interpretations.  '  If  Abraham  was  justified  by  works, 
he  mi2;ht  indeed  assert  his  claim  to  the  confidence  and  favour  of 
his  fellow-men,  but  he  could  not  have  any  ground  of  boasting 
before  God.'  This  view,  however,  introduces  an  idea  entirely 
foreign  from  the  passage,  and  makes  the  conclusion  the  very 
opposite  of  that  to  which  the  premises  would  lead.  For  if 
justified  by  works,  he  would  have  ground  of  boasting  before 
God.  The  interpretation  quoted  in  the  margin  from  Calvin,*  is 
altogether  the  most  satisfactory  and  simple.  '  If  Abraham  was 
justified  by  works  he  hath  whereof  to  glory;  but  he  hath  not 
whereof  to  glory  before  God,  and,  therefore,  he  was  not  justified 
by  works;'  which  is  the  conclusion  which  Paul  intended  to 
establish,  and  which  he  immediately  confirms  by  the  testimony 
of  the  scriptures.  The  argument  thus  far  is  founded  on  the 
assumption,  that  no  man  can  appear  thus  confidently  before  God, 
and  boasted  of  having,  done  all  that  was  required  of  him.  If 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works  involves,  as  Paul  shows  it 
does,  this  claim  to  perfect  obedience,  it  must  be  false.  And  that 
Abraham  was  not  thus  justified, he  proves  from  the  sacred  record. 
(3)  For  what  saith  the  scripture  ?  Mraham  believed  God, 
and  it  ivas  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  The  connexion 
of  this  verse  with  the  preceding  is  this.  Paul  had  just  said 
Abraham  had  no  ground  of  boasting  with  God;  For  what  saith 
the  scripture  ?  Does  it  refer  the  ground  of  Abraham's  justifi- 
cation to  his  works  ?  By  no  means.  It  declares  he  was  justified 
by  faith;  which  Paul  immediately  shows  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  he  was  justified  gratuitously.  The  passage  quoted  by  the 
apostle,  is  Gen.  15:  6,  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  (i.  e.  imputed  to  him)  for  righteousness."  This 
is  an  important  passage,  as  the  phrase  "  to  impute  faith  for 
righteousness,"  occurs  repeatedly  in  Paul's  writings.  The 
primary  meaning  of  the  word  here  rendered  to  count  to,  or 

*  Si  enim  .ibraham.  Epichercma  est,  id  est  imperfecta  ratiotinatio,  quae  in  hanc 
formam  coUigi  debet,  Si  Abraham  operibus  justificatus  est,  potest  siio  nierito  glori- 
ari :  sed  non  habet  unde  glorietur  apiid  Deum :  ergo  non  ex  operibus  justificatus 
est. — Calvin. 


134  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

impute,  is  to  reckon,  ovnumher;  2  Chron.  5:  5,  "Which  could 
not  be  numbered  for  multitude;"  Mark  15:  28,  "He  was  num- 
bered with  transgressors;"  seels.  53: 17,  &c.  &c.  2.  It  means /o 
esteem,  or  regard  as  somethiiig,  that  is,  to  number  as  belonging 
to  a  certain  class  of  things;  Gen.  31:  15,  "Are  we  not  counted 
of  him  strangers;"  Is.  40:  17,  &c.  &c.;  compare  Job  19:  11. 
S3:  10,  in  the  Hebrew.  3.  It  is  used  in  the  more  general  sense 
of  purposing,  devising,  considering,  thinkiiig,  &c.  4.  In 
strict  connexion  with  its  primary  meaning,  it  signifies  to 
impute,  to  set  to  one^s  account;  that  is,  to  number  among 
the  things  belonging  to  a  mdn,  or  chargeable  upon  him.  It 
generally  implies  the  accessory  idea,  '  of  treating  one  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  thing  imputed.'  Thus,  in  the  frequent 
phrase  to  impute  sin,  as  2  Sam.  19:  19,  "Let  not  my  Lord 
impute  iniquity  unto  me,"  i,  e.  '  Let  him  not  lay  it  to  my 
charge,  and  treat  me  accordingly;'  compare  1  Sam.  22:  15,  in  the 
Plebrew  and  Septuagint;  Ps.  32:  2,  (Septuagint,  31)  "Blessed 
is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity,"  &c.  &c. 
And  in  the  New  Testament,  2  Cor.  6:  19,  "  Not  imputing  unto 
men  their  trespasses;"  2  Tim.  4:  15,  "  I  pray  God  that  it  may 
not  be  laid  to  their  charge,"  &c.  &c.  These,  and  numerous 
similar  passages,  render  the  scriptural  idea  of  imputation  per- 
fectly clear.  It  is  laying  any  thing  to  one's  charge,  and  treat- 
ing him  accordingly.  It  produces  no  change  in  the  individual 
to  whom  the  imputation  is  made;  it  simply  alters  his  relation 
to  the  law.  All  those  objections,  therefore,  to  the  doctrine 
expressed  by  this  term,  which  are  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  imputation  alters  the  moral  character  of  men;  that  it  im- 
plies an  infusion  of  either  sin  or  holiness,  rest  on  a  misconcep- 
tion of  its  nature.  It  is  obviously,  so  far  as  the  mere  force  of 
the  term  is  concerned,  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference,  whether 
the  thing  imputed  belonged  antecedently  to  the  person  to  whom 
the  imputation  is  made  or  not.  It  is  just  as  common  and  cor- 
rect to  speak  of  laying  to  a  man's  charge  what  does  not  belong 
to  him,  as  what  does.  That  a  thing  rarely  can  he  justly  imputed 
to  a  person  to  whom  it  docs  not  personally  belong,  is  a  matter 
of  course.  But  that  the  word  itself  implies  that  the  thing 
imputed  must  belong  to  the  person  concerned,  is  a  singular  mis- 
conception. Tiiesc  remarks  have,  of  course,  reference  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  only.     Whether  the  bible  actually  teaches 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  135 

that  there  is  an  imputation  of  either  sin  or  righteousness,  to  any 
to  whom  it  does  not  personally  belong,  is  another  question. 
That  the  bible  does  speak  both  of  imputing  to  a  man  what  does 
not  actually  belong  to  him,  and  of  not  imputing  what  does,  is 
evident  from  the  following,  among  other  passages, Levit.  17:4. 
What  man  soever  killeth  an  ox  and  bringeth  it  not  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  &c.,  "  blood  shall  be  imputed  to  that  man;" 
that  is,  blood-guiltiness  or  murder,  a  crime  of  which  he  was  not 
actually  guilty,  should  be  laid  to  his  charge,  and  he  should  be 
put  to  death.*  On  the  other  hand,  Levit.  7:  18,  if  any  part  of 
a  sacrifice  is  eaten  on  the  third  day,  the  offering  "  shall  not  be 
imputed  to  him  that  made  it."  Paul,  speaking  to  Philemon  of 
the  debt  of  Onesimus,  says,  "  put  that  on  my  account,"  i.  e. 
impute  it  to  me.  The  word  used  in  this  case  is  the  same  as 
that  which  occurs,  Rom.  5:  13, "  Sin  is  not  imputed  where  there 
is  no  law;"  and  is  in  its  root  and  usage  precisely  synonymous 
with  the  word  employed  in  the  passage  before  us,  when  the 
latter  is  used  in  reference  to  imputation.  No  less  than  twice  also, 
in  this  very  chapter,  v.  6  and  v.  11,  Paul  speaks  of '  imputing 
righteousness,'  not  to  those  to  whom  it  personally  belongs,  cer- 
tainly, but  to  the  ungodly,  v.  5,  to  those  who  have  no  works,  v.  6.t 


•  Sanguis  imputabitur  viro  illi.  Sanguis  hie  est  caedes  ;  perinde  Deo  displi- 
cebit,  ac  si  ille  hominem  occidisset,  ac  mortis  reus  judicabitur. — Rosenmueller. 

Als  Blutschuld  soil  es  angerechnet  werden  diesem  Manne. — Gesenius. 

f  Prof.  Stour  of  Tubingen,  De  vario  sensu  vosis  ^ixaiog,  &c.  in  Nov.  Test.,  in 
his  Opuscula  Vol.  p.  224,  says,  "  Smce  that  innocence  or  probity  (expressed  by  the 
word  righteousness)  does  not  belong  to  man  himself,  it  must  be  ascribed  or  imputed 
to  him.  In  this  way  the  formula  '  righteousness  which  is  of  God,'  Phil.  3 :  9, 
and  especially  the  plaijier  expressions  'to  impute  faith  for  righteousness,'  Rom. 
4 :  5,  and  '  to  impute  righteousness'  are  to  be  understood."  We  reacUly  admit,  he 
says,  that  things  which  actually  belong  to  a  man  may  also  be  said  to  be  imputed  to 
him,  as  was  the  case  with  Phineas,  &c.,  and  then  adds,  "  Nevertheless,  as  he  is 
said  not  to  impute  an  action  really  performed.  Lev.  7.  2  Sam.  19,  &c.,  who  does 
not  so  regard  it,  as  to  decree  the  fruit  and  punishment  of  it;  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
those  tilings  can  be  imputed,  Lev.  17:  4,  which  are  not,  in  fact,  found  in  the  man, 
but  which  are  so  far  attributed  to  him,  that  he  may  be  hence  treated  as  though  he 
had  performed  them.  Thus  righteousness  may  be  said  to  be  imputed,  Rom.  4 :  6, 
11,  when  not  his  own  innocence  and  probity,  which  God  determines  to  reward,  is 
ascribed  to  the  believer,  but  when  God  so  ascribes  and  imputes  righteousness,  of 
which  we  are  destitute,  that  we  are  treated  as  innocent  and  just." 

Verbum  Xoyii^Hff&ai  monstrat  gratiara,  Kom.  4:4;  nam  d(xa»offi;V7)v  nostrum 
esse  negat. — yTORR,  p.  23-3. 


136  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

The  idea  of  imputation  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  in  all  the 
hible;  and  is  expressed  in  a  multitude  of  cases  where  the  term 
is  not  used.  When  Stephen  prayed,  Acts  7:  60,  "  Lord  lay  not 
this  sin  to  their  charge,"  he  expressed  exactly  the  same  idea 
that  Paul  did,  when  he  said,  2  Tim,  4:  16,  "  I  pray  God  it  may 
not  be  laid  to  their  charge,"  although  the  latter  uses  the  word 
impute  (XoyiffSsiT]),  and  the  former  does  not.  So  the  expressions 
^'  his  sin  shall  be  upon  him,"  "  he  shall  bear  his  iniquity," 
which  occur  so  often,  are  perfectly  synonymous  with  the  for- 
mula, "  his  sin  shall  be  imputed  to  him;"  and,  of  course,  "  to 
bear  the  sins  of  another,"  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "those  sins 
are  imputed."  The  objection,  therefore,  that  the  word  im- 
pute does  not  occur  in  reference  to  the  imputation  of  the  sin  or 
righteousness  of  one  man  to  another,  even  if  well  founded, 
which  is  not  the  fact,  is  of  no  more  force  than  the  objections 
against  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  vicarious  atonement,  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  &c.,  founded  on  the  fact  that  these 
tvo7'ds  do  not  occur  in  the  bible.  The  material  point  surely  is, 
Do  the  ideas  occur  ?  The  doctrine  of  "  the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness" is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  or  that  school  in  theology. 
It  is  the  possession  of  the  church.  It  was  specially  the  glory 
and   power  of  the  Reformation.*     Those  who  differed   most 

•  The  testimony  of  the  learned  Rationalist,  Bretschneideb,  may  be  received 
with  less  prejudice  than  the  declaration  of  sounder  men.  Speaking  of  the  Confes- 
sions published  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  especially  those  of  the  Lutheran 
church,  he  says,  "  The  symbolical  books,  in  the  first  place,  contradict  the  scholastic 
representation  of  justification,  followed  by  the  Romish  church,  tliat  is,  that  it  is  an 
act  of  God  by  which  he  communicates  to  men  an  mlicrent  righteousness  (jus- 
titia  habitualis,  infusa),  i.  e.  renders  them  virtuous.  They  described  it  far  more 
as  a  forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  that  is,  as  an  act  by  which  merely  the  moral 
relation  of  the  man  to  God,  not  the  man  himself  (at  least  not  immediately),  is 
changed."  "  Hence,  justification  consists  of  throe  parts;  1.  The  imputation  of  the 
merit  of  Christ.  2.  The  remission  of  punishment.  3.  The  restoration  of  the 
favour  and  the  blessedness  forfeited  by  sin."* 

"  By  the  iinputatio  justitiae  (or  meriti)  Christi,  the  symboUcal  books  understand 
that  judgment  of  God,  according  to  which  he  treats  us  as  though  we  had  not  sin- 
ned, but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  merit  of  Christ  was  ours;  see  ^pol. 
./^ri.  9, />.  226,  Merita  propitiatoris — aliis  donantur  imputatione  divina,  ut  per  ea, 
tanquam  pro{)riis  mcritis  justi  reputemur,  ut  si  quis  amicus  pro  amico  solvit  aes 
alieuum,  debitor  alieno  mcrito  tanquam  proprio  hbcratur." — Bhf.tschnkider's 
Entwickelung  aller  in  der  Dog.  vorkommenden  Bcgrillb,  p.  631,  632,  «&c. 

*  He  adds  this  note.  "  The  imputation  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  was  regarded  as 
the  ground  of  justification,  and  is,  therefore,  most  prominently  presented." 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  137 

elsewhere,  were  perfectly  agreed  here.  And  it  is  happily  a 
doctrine  stated  totidem  verbis  in  the  sacred  scriptures. 

But  to  return  to  the  phrase, '  Faith  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness.' It  is  very  common  to  understand  faith  here  to  include 
its  object,  i.  e.  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  so  that  it  is  not  faith 
considered  as  an  act,  which  is  imputed,  but  faith  considered  as 
including  the  merit  which  it  apprehends  and  appropriates.  Thus 
hope  is  often  used  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as  Rom.  8:  24, 
"  Hope  that  is  seen,  is  not  hope,"  &c.;  and  faith  for  the  things 
believed.  Gal.  1:  23,  "  He  preacheth  the  faith,"  &c.  &c.  Al- 
though there  are  difficulties  attending  this  interpretation,  it  can- 
not, with  any  consistency,  be  exclaimed  against,  by  those  who 
make  faith  to  include  the  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart, 
and  its  fruits  in  the  life;  as  is  done  by  the  majority  of  those 
who  reject  this  view  of  the  passage. 

Besides  this  interpretation  there  are  three  other  views  of  the 
passage,  founded  on  three  different  acceptations  of  the  compre- 
hensive word  rendered  righteousness.  1.  It  may  mean,  as  it 
usually  does  in  Paul's  writings,  '  all  that  the  law  demands,' 
*  complete  obedience.'  2.  It  may  be  taken  in  a  much  more 
limited  sense,  as  when  this  or  that  good  action  is  said  to  be 
righteousness,  i.  e.  right,  worthy  of  approbation.  3.  It  may 
mean  justification,  the  introduction  of  one  into  the  state  and 
privileges  of  the  just.  If  the  first  sense  of  the  word  be  adopt- 
ed, the  meaning  of  the  clause  is,  '  Faith  is  counted  or  imputed 
as  though  it  were  perfect  obedience.  It  is  taken  instead  of  the 
perfect  righteousness  which  the  law  demands.'  Thus  uncir- 
cumcision  is  said  to  be  imputed  for  circumcision,  i.  e.  the  one 
is  regarded  and  treated  as  though  it  were  the  other.  Thus,  too, 
the  heave-offering  was  reckoned  as  though  it  were  the  corn  of 
the  threshing  floor,  and  the  fulness  of  the  wine  press.  Num.  18: 
27;  and  so  frequently  in  the  scriptures.  According  to  this  view, 
faith  is  not  merely  the  instrument,  it  is  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion, it  is  taken  for  what  it  is  not,  it  is  regarded  as  perfect  obe- 
dience. It  must  be  admitted  that,  as  far  as  the  mere  force  of 
the  words  are  concerned,  this  interpretation  is  natural,  being 
perfectly  consistent  with  usage.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  al- 
though this  view  of  the  passage,  considering  this  clause  by 
itself,  is  possible,  it  is  by  no  means  necessary,  nor  the  only  one 

18 


138  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

which  the  words  will  naturally  bear;  and  it  is  utterly  irrecon- 
cileable  with  the  apostle's  doctrine  and  object,  and  with  numer- 
ous other  passages  of  scripture.     1.  It  contradicts  all  those  pas- 
sages in  which  Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  deny  that  the 
ground  of  justification  is  any  thing  in  us,  or  done  by  us.    These 
passages  are  too  numerous  to  be  cited;  see  ch.  3:  20,  where  it 
is  shown  that  the  works  which  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of 
justification  are  not  ceremonial  works  merely,  nor  works  per- 
formed with  a  legal  spirit,  but  all  works,  without  exception, 
works  of  righteousness,  (Titus  3:  5)  i.  e.  all  right,  or  good  works. 
But  faith  considered  as  an  act,  is  as  much  a  work  as  prayer,  re- 
pentance, almsgiving,  or  any  thing  of  the  kind.     And  it  is  as 
much  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  law,  as  the  performance  of  any 
other  duty,  for  the  law  requires  us  to  do  whatever  is  in  itself 
right.     2.  It  contradicts  all  those  passages  in  which  the  merit 
of  Christ,  in  any  form,  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance.    Thus  in  ch.  3:  25,  it  is  Christ's  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice; ch.  5:  18,  19,  it  is  his  obedience  or  righteousness;  in  many 
other  places  it  is  said  to  be  his  death,  his  cros^,  his  blood.    Faith 
must  either  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  or  the  means  or 
instrument  of  our  becoming  interested  in  the  true  meritorious 
ground,  viz.  the  righteousness  of  Christ.     It  cannot  stand  in 
both  relations  to  our  justification.     3.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
the  office  ascribed  to  faith.     We  are  said  to  be  saved  by,  or 
through  faith,  but  never  on  account  of  our  faith,  or  on  the 
ground  of  it.     (It  is  always  Sia  iriVrews,  or  sx  tiVtsws,  but  never 
<5id  */o'Tiv.)     The  expressions  "through  faith  in  his  blood,"  3: 
25,  "  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.,  admit  of  no  other  interpre- 
tation than  '  by  means  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  or,  in 
Christ  himself,  as  the  ground  of  confidence.'     The  interpreta- 
tion, therefore,  under  consideration,  is  at  variance  with  the  very 
nature  of  faith,  which  necessarily  includes  the  receiving  and 
resting  on  Christ  as  the  ground  of  acceptance  with  God;  and, 
of  course,  implies  that  faith  itself  is  not  that  ground.     4.   We 
accordingly,    never   find  Paul,  nor  any  other  of  the   sacred 
writers,  referring  his  readers  to  their  faith,  or  any  thing  in 
themselves  as  the  ground  of  their  confidence.     Even  in  refer- 
ence to  those  most  advanced  in  holiness  he  directs  them  to  what 
Christ  has  done  for  them,  not  to  any  thing  wrought  in  them  as 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  139 

the  ground  of  their  acceptance.*  5.  Paul  by  interchanging  the 
ambiguous  phrase,  '  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness,'  with  the 
more  definite  expressions,  'justified  through  or  by  means  of 
faith;'  'justified  through  faith  in  his  blood,'  fixes  the  sense  in 
which  the  clause  in  question  is  to  be  understood.  It  must  ex- 
press the  idea  that  it  was  by  means  of  faith,  that  Abraham  came 
to  be  treated  as  righteous,  and  not  that  faith  was  taken  in  lieu 
of  perfect  obedience.  See  this  subject  more  fully  discussed  in 
Owen  on  Justification,  ch.  xviii. 

According  to  the  second  view,  the  word  righteoiisness  is 
taken  in  a  much  more  limited  sense,  and  the  phrase  '  to  impute 
faith  for  righteousness,'  is  understood  to  mean  '  faith  was  regard- 
ed as  right,  it  was  approved.'  This  interpretation  also  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  usage.  Thus  Ps.  106:  31,  it  is  said  of 
the  zeal  of  Phineas,  "  It  was  counted  to  him  as  righteousness." 
This,  of  course,  does  not  mean  that  it  was  regarded  as  com- 
plete obedience  to  the  law,  and  taken  in  its  stead  as  the  ground 
of  justification.  It  means  simply  that  his  zeal  was  approved 
of.  It  was  regarded,  says  Dr.  Owen,  "  as  a  just  and  reward- 
able  action."t  In  like  manner,  Deut.  24:  13,  it  is  said  of  re- 
turning a  pledge,  "  It  shall  be  righteousness  unto  thee  before 
the  Lord  thy  God."  Agreeably  to  the  analogy  of  these  pas- 
sages, the  meaning  of  this  clause  may  be,  '  his  faith  was  regard- 
ed as  right,  it  secured  the  approbation  of  God:'  how  it  did  this, 
must  be  learned  from  other  passages. 

The  third  interpretation  assumes  that  the  word  translated 
righteousness  means  here,  as  it  does  in  many  other  passages, 
justification.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Faith  was  imputed  to  him 
for  justification,'  i.  e.  that  he  might  be  justified,  or  in  order  to 

•  See  a  beautiful  passage  to  this  effect  in  Neanher's  Gelegenheitschriften,  p. 
2.3.  After  stating  that  the  believer  can  never  rest  his  justification  on  his  own 
spiritual  life,  or  works,  he  adds,  "  It  would,  indeed,  fare  badly  with  the  Christian, 
if  on  such  weak  ground  as  this,  he  had  to  build  his  justification,  if  he  did  not  know 
that '  if  he  confesses  his  sins,  and  walks  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanses  from  all  sin.'  Paul,  therefore,  refers  even  the  re- 
deemed, disturbed  by  the  reproaches  of  conscience,  amidst  the  conflicts  and  trials  of 
life,  not  to  the  work  of  Christ  iw  themselves,  but  to  what  the  love  of  Cod  in 
Christ  has  done  fok  theivt,  and  which,  even  notwithstanding  their  own  continued 
sinfulness,  remains  ever  sure." 

j-  Divinitus  approbatura  erat,  tanquam  juste  factum. — TccKNEr,  Pralectiones, 
p.  212. 


140  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

his  becoming  and  being  treated  as  righteous;*  see  10:  4,  "  Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness,"  i.  e.  in  order  that 
every  one  that  believes  may  be  regarded  as  righteous.  Nothing 
is  more  familiar  than  this  use  of  the  preposition  (slg)  here  used 
by  the  apostle.  It  points  out  the  design  with  which  any  thing 
is  done,  as  "  unto  repentance,"  that  men  may  repent.  Matt.  3: 
11;  "  unto  death,"  that  we  may  die,  Rom.  6:3.  So  '  unto  sal- 
vation,' Rom.  10:  1;  'unto  condemnation,'  Luke  24:  20.  Or  it 
indicates  the  result;  Rom.  10:  10,  "With  the  heart  man  be- 
lieveth  unto  righteousness,"  i.  e.  so  that  he  is  justified,  regard- 
ed and  treated  as  righteous;  see  Wahl,  p.  429,  431.  This  view 
of  the  passage  expresses  accurately  the  apostle's  meaning.  It 
was  not  as  '  one  who  works,'  but  as  a  believer  that  Abraham 
was  regarded  in  his  justification.  It  was  not  works,  but  fiiith 
that  was  imputed  to  him,  in  order  to  his  being  introduced  into 
the  number  and  blessings  of  the  righteous.  Faith,  therefore, 
w^as  not  the  ground  of  his  justification,  but  the  means  of  his 
being  justified. 

(4,  5)  Noiv  to  hhn  that  ivorkcth  the  reward  is  not  reckoned 
of  grace,  but  of  debt,  Jmt  to  him  that  ivorket/i  not,  &c. 
These  verses  are  designed,  in  the  first  place,  to  vindicate  the 
pertinency  of  the  quotation  from  scripture  made  in  v.  3;  by 
showing  tJiat  the  declaration  '  faith  was  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness,' is  a  denial  that  works  were  the  ground  of  Abraham's  ac- 
ceptance; and,  secondly,  that  to  justify  by  faith,  is  to  Justify 
gratuitously,  and,  therefore,  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratui- 
tous acceptance,  are  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith. 

Now  to  him  that  worketh,  tliat  is,  either  emphatically  '  to 
him  who  docs  all  thai  is  required  of  him;'  or  to  'him  who  seeks 
to  be  accepted  on  account  of  his  works.'  The  former  explana- 
tion is  the  better.  The  words  then  state  a  general  proposition, 
*  To  him  that  is  obedient,  or  who  performs  a  stipulated  work, 
the  recompense  is  not  regarded  as  a  gratuity,  but  as  a  debt't 

*  Hac  phrasi  praccijxic  spectatur,/fn/.v  et  ejft'ctvm,  ut  ex  imputationo  hac  Justus 
habeatur,  ct  absolvatur;  uti  peccatum  alicui  imjiutari  dicitur  noii  ut  illuil  halicul,  sod 
propter  illud  punialur. — ^Tixkneit,  p.  215. 

\  Michaelis  anil  Tlioluck  understand  this  verse  tlius,  '  To  him  that  worketh,  the 
reward  is  not  imputed,  it  is  a  matter  of  debt.'  According  to  this  view,  it  hes  in 
the  very  force  of  the  word  impiited,  in  Paul's  sense  of  the  term,  that  the  tiling 
reckojied  to  any  one  does  not  jirojjerly  belong  to  him.     See  Tholuck. 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  141 

(5)  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him 
who  justificth  the  ungodly,  to  him  faith  is  counted  for 
righteousness.  "To  him  that  worketh  not,"  i.  e.  who  makes 
no  pretence  of  earning  or  meriting  a  reward,  hut  renouncing  all 
dependence  on  his  works,  "believeth  on  him  whojustifieth  the 
ungodly,"  to  him,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  acceptancie  is  a 
gratuity.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  faith'of  which  Paul  speaks, 
that  he  who  exercises  it  should  feel  and  acknowledge  that  he  is 
ungodly,  and  consequently  undeserving  of  the  favour  of  God. 
He,  of  course,  in  relying  on  the  mercy  of  God,  must  acknow- 
ledge that  his  acceptance  is  a  matter  of  grace,  and  not  of  debt. 
The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is  plainly  this:  'To  him  that 
worketh  the  reward,  is  a  matter  of  debt,  but  to  him  who  worketh 
not,  but  believes  simply,  the  reward  is  a  matter  of  grace.'  Instead, 
however,  of  saying  'it  is  a  matter  of  grace,'  he  uses  as  an  equiva- 
lent expression,  "to  him  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness."  That 
is,  he  is  justified  by  faith.  To  be  justified  by  faith,  therefore,  is  to 
be  justified  gratuitously,  and  not  by  works.  It  is  thus  he  proves 
that  the  passage  cited  in  v.  3,  respecting  Abraham,  was  pertinent 
to  his  purpose  as  an  argument  against  justification  by  works.  It, 
at  the  same  time,  shows  that  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratui- 
tous acceptance,  may  be  cited  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.  The  way  is  thus  opened  for  his  ^eco?zc?  argument, 
which  is  derived  from  the  testimony  of  David. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Paul  speaks  of  God  as  justifying 
the  ungodly.  Of  course  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
righteous,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  personal  character;  and  it 
is  further  apparent  that  justification  does  not  consist  in  making 
one  inherently  just  or  holy;  for  it  is  as  ungodly  that  those  who 
believe  are  freely  justified  for  Christ's  sake.  It  never  was,  as 
shown  above,  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  or  of  the  Lu- 
theran and  Calvinistic  divines,  that  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness affected  the  moral  character  of  those  concerned.  It  is  true, 
whom  God  justifies  he  also  sanctifies,  but  justification  is  not 
sanctification  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness  is  not  the 
infusion  of  righteousness.  "  These  be  the  first  principles"  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers.  "  The  fourth  grand  error  of 
the  Papists  in  the  article  of  justification,"  says  an  old  divine, 
"  is  concerning  that  which  we  call  the  form  thereof.  For 
they,  denying  and  deriding  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 


142  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

eousness  (without  which,  notwithstanding,  no  man  can  be  saved), 
do  hold  that  men  are  justified  by  infusion,  and  not  by  impu- 
tation of  righteousness:  Ave,  on  the  contrary  do  hold,  according 
to  the  scriptures,  that  we  are  justified  before   God,  only  by 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and   not  by  infusion. 
And  our  meaning,3yhen  we   say  that  God  imputeth  Christ's 
righteousness   unto'^us,   is   nothing    else    but    this:    that    he 
graciously  accepteth  for  us,  and  in  our  behalf,  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  that  is,  both  as  to  his  obedience,  which,  in  the  days  of 
his  flesh,  he  performed  for  us;  and  passive,  that  is,  his  suffer- 
ings, wdiich  lie  sustained  for  us,  as  if  we  had  in  our  own  persons 
both  performed  and  suffered  the  same  ourselves.     Howbeit,  we 
confess  that  the  Lord  doth  infuse  righteousness  into  the  faithful; 
yet  not  as  he  justifieth,  but  as  he  sanctifieth  them,  &c."    Bishop 
Downame,  who  lived  in  the  age,  and  possessed  the  spirit  of  the 
Puritans;  see  his  work  on  justification,  p.  261.     Tuckney,  one 
of  the  leading  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
principal  penman  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  in  his  Praclectiones, 
p.  213,  says,  "Although  Godjustifies  the  ungodly,  Rom.  4:  5,  i.  e. 
him  who  was  antecedently  ungodly,  and  who,  in  a  measure,  re- 
mains, as  to  his  inherent  character,  unjust  after  justification,"  yet 
it  has  its  proper  ground  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  &c.     On  p. 
220,  he  says,  "The  Papists  understand  by  justification  the  infu- 
sion of  inherent  righteousness,  and  thus  confound  justification 
with  sanctification:  which,  if  it  was  the  true  nature  and  definition 
of  justification,  they  might  well   deny  that  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  is  the  cause,  or  formal  reason  of  this  justi- 
fication, i.  e.  of  sanctification.     For  we  are  not  so   foolish  or 
blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  think,  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us,  renders  us  formally  or  inherently  right- 
eous, so  that  we  should  be  formally  or  inherently  righteous 
with  the  righteousness  of  Christ.     Since  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  proper  to  himself,  and  is  as  inseparable  from  him,  and 
as  incommunicable  to  others,  as  any  other  attribute  of  a  thing 
or  its  essence  itself." 

(6)  Even  as  David  also  dcscrihcth  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works.  Paul's 
first  argument  in  fiivour  of  gratuitovi«  justification  was  from  the 
case  of  Abraham;  his  second  is  from  the  testimony  of  David. 
The  immediate  connexion  of  this  verse  is  with  v.  5.     At  the 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  143 

conclusion  of  that  verse,  it  was  said,  to  him  who  had  no  works 
faith  is  imputed  in  order  to  his  justification,  i.  e.  he  is  justified 
gratuitously,  even  as  David  speaks  of  the  blessedness  of  him, 
whom,  although  destitute  of  merit,  God  regards  and  treats  as 
righteous.  Describeth  the  blessedness,  i.  e,  pronounces  blessed. 
To  lohom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  wo7'ks,  that  is, 
whom  God  regards  and  treats  as  righteous,  although  he  is  not 
in  himself  righteous.  The  meaning  of  this  clause  cannot  be 
mistaken.  '  To  impute  sin'  is  to  lay  sin  to  the  charge  of  any 
one,  and  to  treat  him  accordingly,  as  is  universally  admitted; 
so  '  to  impute  righteousness,'  is  to  set  righteousness  to  one's 
account,  and  to  treat  him  accordingly.  This  righteousness  does 
not,  of  course,  belong  antecedently  to  those  to  whom  it  is  im- 
puted, for  they  are  ungodly  and  destitute  of  works.  Here  then 
is  an  imputation  to  men  of  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  and 
to  which  they  have  in  themselves  no  claim.  To  impute  right- 
eousness is  the  apostle's  definition  of  the  term  to  justify.  It  is 
not  making  men  inherently  righteous,  or  morally  pure,  but  it  is 
regarding  and  treating  them  as  just.  This  is  done,  not  on  the 
ground  of  personal  character  or  works,  but  on  the  ground  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  As  this  is  dealing  with  men,  not 
according  to  merit,  but  in  a  gracious  manner,  the  passage  cited 
from  Ps.  32: 1,  2,  is  precisely  in  point,  "  Blessed  are  they  whose 
iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is 
the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  That  is, 
blessed  is  the  man,  who,  although  a  sinner,  is  regarded  and  treated 
as  righteous.  As  the  remission  of  sin  is  necessarily  connected 
with  restoration  to  God's  favour,  the  apostle  speaks  of  it  as  the 
whole  of  justification;  not  that  the  idea  of  remission  exhausts 
the  whole  idea  of  justification,  but  it  necessary  implies  the  rest. 
In  like  manner,  in  Eph,  1 :  7,  it  is  said  "  In  whom  we  have 
redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  sin;"  which  does  not  imply  that 
forgiveness  is  the  whole  of  redemption,  that  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  the  glorification  of  the  body,  and  eternal  life,  which  are 
so  constantly  spoken  of,  as  fruits  of  Christ's  work,  as  parts  of 
"  the  purchased  possession,"  (Eph.  1 :  14,)  are  to  be  excluded. 
(9)  Cometh  this  blessedness  upon  the  circumcision  only, 
or  ufon  the  uncircumcision  also?  &c.  The  apostle's  third  ar- 
gument, commencing  with  this  verse  and  continuing  to  the  12th, 
has  special  reference  to   circumcision.     He  had   proved   that 


144  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

Abraham  was  not  justified  on  account  of  his  works  generally; 
he  now  proves  that  circumcision  is  neither  the  ground  nor 
condition  of  his  acceptance.  The  proof  of  this  point  is  brief 
and  conclusive.  It  is  admitted  that  Abraham  was  justified. 
The  only  question  is,  was  it  before  or  after  his  circumcision  ? 
If  before,  it  certainly  was  not  on  account  of  it.  As  it  was  before, 
circumcision  must  have  had  some  other  object. 

'  Cometh  this  blessedness.^  There  is  nothing  in  the  original 
to  answer  to  the  word  cometh,  although  some  word  of  the  kind 
must  be  supplied.  The  word  rendered  blessedness  means  more 
properly  '  declaration  of  blessedness.'  '  This  declaration  of 
blessedness,  is  it  uj)on,  i.  e.  is  it  about,  does  it  concern  the 
circumcision  only?'  The  preposition  (sffi)  used  by  the  apostle, 
often  points  out  the  direction  of  an  action,  or  the  object  concern- 
ing which  any  thing  is  said.  This  question  has  not  direct  refer- 
ence to  the  persons  to  whom  the  ofiers  of  acceptance  are  appli- 
cable, as  though  it  were  equivalent  to  asking, '  Is  this  blessedness 
confined  to  the  Jews,  or  may  it  be  extended  to  the  Gentiles 
also?'  because  this  is  not  the  subject  now  in  hand.  It  is  the 
ground  or  condition  of  acceptance,  and  not  the  persons  to  whom 
the  offer  is  to  be  made,  that  is  now  under  consideration.  The 
question,  therefore,  is,  in  substance,  this,  '  Does  this  declaration 
of  blessedness  relate  to  the  circumcised,  as  such  ?  Is  circum- 
cision necessary  to  justification  ?'  which  is  the  blessing  of  which 
Paul  is  speaking. 

For  we  say  that  faith  ivas  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  right- 
eousness. For  merely  indicates  the  resumption  of  the  case  of 
Abraham.  The  preceding  verses  are  occupied  with  the  testi- 
mony of  David,  which  decided  nothing  as  to  the  point  of  cir- 
cumcision. To  determine  whether  this  rite  was  a  necessary 
condition  of  acceptance,  it  was  requisite  to  refer  again  to  the 
case  of  Abraham.  To  decide  the  point  presented  in  the  ques- 
tion at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  the  apostle  argues  from  the 
position  already  established.  It  is  conceded  or ,  proved  that 
Abraham  was  justified  by  faith;  to  determine  whether  circum- 
cision is  necessary,  we  have  only  to  ask,  under  what  circum- 
stances Avas  he  thus  justified,  before  or  after  circumcision? 

(10)  How  UHis  it  then  reckoned?  When  he  ivas  iji  circum- 
cision or  uncircumcision?  Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncir- 
cumcisiun.     Of  course,  his  circumcision,  which  was  long  sub- 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  145 

sequent  to  his  justification,  could  not  be  either  the  ground  or 
necessary  condition  of  his  acceptance  with  God. 

(11)  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  the  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircumcised,  &c.  As  Paul  had  shown  that  circumcision 
was  not  the  condition  of  justification,  it  became  necessary  to 
declare  its  true  nature  and  design.  The  sign  of  circumcision, 
i.  e.  circumcision  which  was  a  sign  (genitive  of  apposition);  as 
'•'  the  earnest  of  the  spirit,"  for  '  the  spirit  which  is  an  earnest,' 
2  Cor.  1:  20.  The  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  &c. 
The  phrase  righteousness  of  faith  is  a  concise  expression  '  for 
righteousness  which  is  attained  by  faith,'  or,  as  it  stands  more 
fully  in  Phil.  3:  9,  "the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by 
faith."  The  word  righteousness,  in  such  connexions,  includes, 
with  the  idea  of  excellence  or  obedience,  that  of  consequent 
blessedness.  It  is  the  '  state  of  acceptableness  with  God.'  The 
circumcision  of  Abraham  was  designed  to  confirm  to  him  the 
fact,  that  he  was  regarded  and  treated  by  God  as  righteous, 
through  faith,  which  was  the  means  of  his  becoming  interested 
in  the  promise  of  redemption.  This  was  a  faith  which  Abra- 
ham had,  being  yet  iincircumcised,  literally,  by  or  with  un- 
circumcision;  see  ch.  2:  27,  where  the  same  preposition  is  used, 
as  it  is  here,  to  indicate  the  state  or  condition  in  which  a  person 
is;  Wahl,  p.  275. 

That  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  that  believe,  though 
they  be  not  circumcised,  &c.  '  That  he  might  be;'  the  form 
of  expression  in  the  original  {z]^  to  slvm)  may  signify  either  the 
design  or  result.  If  the  former,  as  it  is  taken  in  our  version, 
the  meaning  is,  that  the  annunciation  of  the  justification  of 
Abraham  before  his  circumcision,  was  with  the  design  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  uncircumcised  believers.  If  the  latter, 
the  sense  is, '  He  was  thus  justified,  hence  he  is,  &c.'  Either 
method  suits  the  context;  the  latter  seems,  however,  the  more 
natural.  The  word  father  is  often  used  to  express  the  general 
idea  of  dependence,  as  of  a  disciple  on  a  master,  (hence  applied 
to  teachers  in  religion,  Abbas,  Papa,  Pope,  Pater,  the  Fathers, 
&c.;  see  Gesenius  Lex.)  of  a  follower  on  a  leader,  &c.  Hence, 
the  inventor  or  author  of  any  thing  is  called  a  father;  Gen.  4: 
20,  "  The  father  of  all  those  who  handle  the  organ."  Abraham 
is  called  the  "  Father  of  the  faithful,"  as  their  leader,  from  being 

19 


146  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

the  first  conspicuous  example  of  faith  recorded  in  the  scriptures, 
and  from  being  the  head  of  the  family  of  God,  i.  e.  of  his  pecu- 
liar people.  As  the  church,  under  the  Old  Testament,  stood  in 
this  relation  to  Abraham,  it  was  not  disowned  by  those  intro- 
duced into  it,  when  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles  was  broken  down.  To  be  a  child  of  Abra- 
ham is  to  be  like  him,  to  have  the  same  faith  that  he  had.  Gal. 
3:7;  and,  of  course,  as  their  head,  leader  and  example,  Abra- 
ham is  the  father  of  all  those  who  believe.  The  Jews  were  ac- 
customed to  speak  in  the  same  way  of  Abraham;  Michlal  Jophi 
on  Malachi,  2:  15;  by  the  one  there  mentioned,  "Abraham  is 
intended,  for  he  was  one  alone,  and  the  father  of  all  who  follow 
and  imitate  him  in  faith."  Bechai,  fol.  27,  he  is  called  "  The 
root  of  faith,  and  father  of  all  those  who  believe  in  one  God." 
Jalkut  Chadasch,  fol.  54,  4,  "  On  this  account  Abraham  was  not 
circumcised  until  he  was  ninety-nine  years  old,  lest  he  should 
shut  the  door  on  proselytes  coming  in;"  see  Schoettgen,  p.  508. 

Of  all  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circwncised,  lite- 
rally,'  of  all  believing  with  (or  in)  uncircumcision;'  see  the 
previous  clause,  and  ch.  2:  27.  That  righteousness  might  be 
imputed  unto  them  also.  The  connexion  and  design  of  these 
words  are  not  very  clear,  and  they  are,  therefore,  variously  ex- 
plained. They  may  be  considered  as  explanatory  of  the  former 
clause,  and,  therefore,  connected  with  the  first  part  of  the  verse. 
The  sense  would  then  be,  '  Abraham  was  justified,  being  yet 
uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  believers,  although 
uncircumcised,  that  is,  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto 
them  also.'  But  the  logical  connexion  is  not  thus  very  plain, 
as  the  justification  of  Abraham  was  not  designed  to  secure  the 
justification  of  others.  This  clause  is  most  commonly  regarded 
as  a  parenthesis,  designed  to  indicate  the  point  of  resemblance 
between  Abraham  and  those  of  whom  he  is  called  the  father. 
'  He  is  the  father  of  uncircumcised  believers,  since  they  also 
are  justified  by  faith  as  he  was.'  Righteousness  ivas  imputed 
to  them;  see  above,  vs.  3,  6. 

(12)  Jlnd  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  luho  are  not 
of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk,  &c.  "  Father 
of  circumcision^^  means  '  the  father  of  the  circumcised.'  As, 
in  Hebrew,  the  expression  occurs  "  father  to,"  as  well  as  "  fa- 
ther of,"  Paul  uses  the  former   exj)ression   here,  '  Father  to 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  147 

them;'  see  2  Sam.  7:  14.  Heb.  1:  5.  The  meaning  of  this  verse 
is  doubtful.  Agreeably  to  our  version,  which  adheres  closely 
to  the  Greek,  the  meaning  is,  '  Abraham  is  not  the  father  of  the 
uncircumcised  believers  only,  as  stated  in  v.  11,  but  he  is  the 
father  of  the  circumcised  also,  provided  they  follow  the  example 
of  his  faith.'  According  to  this  view,  as  the  11th  verse  de- 
clares him  to  be  the  father  of  believing  Gentiles,  this  presents 
him  as  the  father  of  believing  Jews,  i.  e.  of  those  Jews  which 
have  some  better  bond  of  connexion  with  him  than  circum- 
cision merely.  But,  according  to  another  interpretation,  this 
verse  includes  both  classes  of  his  spiritual  seed.  '  He  is  the 
father  of  the  circumcision,  and  not  of  the  circumcision  only, 
but  of  those  also  who  follow  his  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircumcised.'  The  construction  in  the  Greek  is  in  favour  of 
the  former  method.  The  expression  is,  '  To  those  who  are 
not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but,  &c.'  instead  of  being,  '  Not 
to  those  only  who  are,'  &c.,  as  the  latter  interpretation  would 
require;  compare  v.  16. 

Verses  13 — 16  contain  two  additional  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  apostle's  doctrine.  The  first,  vs.  13,  14,  is  the  same  as  that 
presented  more  at  length  in  Gal.  3:  18,  &c.,  and  is  founded  on 
the  nature  of  a  covenant.  The  promise  having  been  made  to 
Abraham  (and  his  seed),  on  the  condition  of  faith,  cannot  now, 
consistently  with  fidelity,  be  made  to  depend  on  obedience  to 
the  law.  The  second  argument,  vs.  15,  16,  is  from  the  nature 
of  the  law  itself. 

(13)  For  the  promise,  that  he  shontd  be  heir  of  the  world, 
wan  not  to  Abraham  or  to  his  seed,  &c.  The  word  for  does 
not  connect  this  verse  with  the  one  immediately  preceding,  as 
a  proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  circumcision.  It  rather  marks 
the  introduction  of  a  new  argument  in  favour  of  the  general 
proposition  which  the  chapter  is  designed  to  establish.  As 
Abraham  was  not  justified  for  his  circumcision,  so  neither  was 
it  on  account  of  his  obedience  to  the  law.  The  promise  here 
spoken  of,  is,  that  Abraham  and  his  seed  should  be  the  heirs  of 
the  world.  The  word  heir  in  scripture  frequently  means 
secure  possessor,  Heb.  1:  2.  6:  17.  11:  7,  &c.  This  use  of  the 
term  probably  arose  from  the  fact,  that  among  the  Jews,  pos- 
session by  inheritance,  was  much  more  secure  and  permanent 
than  that  obtained  by  purchase.     As  no  such  promise  as  that 


148  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

mentioned  in  this  verse  is  contained,  in  so  many  words,  in  tlie 
Old  Testament,  the  apostle  must  have  designed  to  express  what 
he  knew  to  be  the  purport  of  those  actually  given.  The  ex- 
pression, however,  has  been  variously  explained.  1.  Some 
understand  the  world  to  mean  the  land  of  Canaan  merely.  But 
in  the  first  place,  this  is  a  very  unusual,  if  not  an  entirely 
unexampled  use  of  the  word.  And,  in  the  second  place,  this 
explanation  is  inconsistent  with  the  context;  for  Paul  has 
reference  to  a  promise  of  which,  as  appears  from  v.  IG,  believing 
Gentiles  were  to  partake.  2.  Others  understand  the  apostle  to 
refer  to  the  promise  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many 
nations.  Gen.  17:5,  and  his  posterity  as  numerous  as  the  stars 
of  heaven,  Gen.  15:5;  promises  which  they  limit  to  his  natural 
descendants,  who,  being  widely  scattered,  may  be  said,  in  a 
limited  sense,  to  possess  the  world.  But  this  interpretation  is 
irreconcilable  with  v.  16.  3.  Besides  the  promises  already 
referred  to,  it  was  also  said,  that  in  him  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed.  Gen.  12:3.  This,  as  Paul  explains  it, 
Gal.  3:  16,&c.,had  direct  reference  to  the  blessings  of  redemp- 
tion through  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  the  seed  of  Abraham.  And 
here  too,  he  speaks  of  blessings  of  which  all  believers  partake 
The  possession  of  the  world,  therefore,  here  intended,  must  be 
understood  in  a  manner  consistent  with  those  passages.  The 
expression  is  frequently  taken  in  a  general  sense,  as  indicating 
general  prosperity  and  happiness.  "  To  be  heir  of  the  world" 
would  then  mean  to  be  prosperous  and  haj.jiy,  in  the  best  sense 
of  tlie  words.  Reference  is  made,  in  support  of  this  interpre- 
tation, to  such  passages  as  Matt.  5:  5,  "  The  meek  shall  inherit 
the  earth;"  Ps.  25:  13,  "The  seed  of  the  righteous  shall  inherit 
the  earth;"  Ps.  37:  11.  The  promise  then,  to  be  the  heir  of  the 
world,  is  a  general  promise  of  blessedness.  And  as  the  happi- 
ness promised  to  believers,  or  the  pious  as  such,  is,  of  course, 
the  happiness  consequent  on  religion,  and  is  its  reward,  the 
promise  in  this  sense  may  include  all  the  blessings  of  redemp- 
tion. So  in  Gal.  3:  14,  Paul  uses  the  expression  "that  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles,"  as  equivalent 
to  saying,  '  that  all  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  might  come  upon 
them.'  4.  Or  the  promises  in  question  may  have  reference  to 
the  actual  possession  of  the  world  by  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  Christ  their  head.    The  declaration  that  Abraham 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  149 

should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  and  that  his  seed  should 
be  as  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude,  inchided  far  more  than 
that  his  natural  descendants  should  be  very  numerous.  If  they 
who  are  of  faith,  '  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  of  the 
promise,'  Gab  3:  9,  29,  then  will  the  promise,  as  stated  by  the 
apostle,  have  its  literal  accomplishment;  when  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  are  given  to  the  saints  of  the  most  high  God  (Dan. 
7:  27),  and  when  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  become  the 
possession  of  Christ.  In  this  sense,  the  promise  includes  the 
universal  prevalence  of  the  true  religion,  involving,  of  course, 
the  advent  of  Christ,  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  and  all 
its  consequent  blessings.* 

The  promise  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  was  not  fhi'oiigh  the 
law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.  That  is,  it  was 
not  on  condition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  condition  of 
his  having  that  righteousness  which  is  obtained  by  faith 
Through  the  law,  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  through  the 
works  of  the  law,  as  appears  from  its  opposition  to  the  latter 
clause,  'righteousness  of  faith.'  By  the  law,  is  to  be  understood 
the  wdiole  rule  of  duty,  as  in  other  passages  of  the  same  kind; 
see  3:  20.  In  this  sense,  it  of  course  includes  the  Mosaic  law, 
which,  to  the  Jews,  was  the  most  prominent  portion  of  the 
revealed  will  of  God,  and  by  obedience  to  which  especially, 
they  hoped  for  the  mercy  of  God.  The  parallel  passage.  Gal. 
3:  18,  &c.,  where  the  law  is  said  to  have  been  given  four  hun- 
dred years  after  the  covenant  formed  with  Abraham,  shows  it 
was  one  part  of  the  apostle's  design  to  convince  the  Jews,  that 
as  Abraham  was  not  justified  by  his  circumcision,  v.  11,  so  also 
it  was  not  in  virtue  of  the  Mosaic  economy;  and,  therefore,  the 
promise  could  not  be  made  to  depend,  on  the  condition  of  obe- 
dience to  that  dispensation.  This  idea,  although  included,  is  not 
to  be  urged  to  the  exclusion  of  the  more  comprehensive  meaning 
of  the  word  law,  which  the  usage  of  the  apostle  and  tlie  con- 
text show  to  be  also  intended.     It  was  neither  by  obedience  to 

*  Bemidhar  R.  14,  f.  202,  "The  garden  is  the  world  which  God  gave  to 
Abraham,  to  whom  it  is  said:  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing."  Thanclnima,  p.  165. 
"  God  gave  to  my  father  Abraham  the  possession  of  heaven  and  earth."  Midrascit 
Misc/de,  19.  Mechila  in  Ex.  14:  31,  "Abraham  our  father  did  not  obtain  the 
inheritance  of  this  world  and  the  world  to  come,  except  through  faith." — 
Wetstein. 


150  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

the  law,  generally,  nor  to  the  particular  form  of  it,  as  it  appeared 
in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  that  the  promise  was  to  be  secured. 

(14)  For  if  they  who  are  of  the  law,  be  heirs,  &c.  The 
original  condition  being  faith,  if  another  be  substituted,  the 
covenant  is  broken,  the  promise  violated,  and  the  condition 
made  of  none  effect.  "  They  who  are  of  the  law"  sometimes,  as 
V.  16,  means  the  Jews,  i.  e.  those  who  have  the  law;  compare 
V.  12, "  Those  of  circumcision,"  &c.  But  here  it  means  legalists, 
those  who  seek  justification  by  the  works  of  the  law;  as  'those 
Avho  are  of  fiiith'  are  believers,  those  who  seek  justification  by 
faith;  compare  Gal.  3:  10,  "As  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the 
law  are  under  the  curse,"  i.  e.  as  many  as  seek  acceptance  by 
their  own  works.  The  apostle's  meaning,  therefore,  obviously  is, 
that  if  those  who  rely  upon  their  own  works,  are  the  heirs  of  the 
promise,  and  are  accepted  on  the  condition  of  obedience  to  the 
law,  the  whole  covenant  is  broken, yj'//7 A  is  made  void,  and  the 
promise  made  of  none  effect.  "  Is  made  void"  is  rendered 
useless;  see  1  Cor.  1:  17,  "The  cross  of  Christ  is  made  use- 
less," 9:  15,  &c.;  compare  1  Cor.  15:  17,  "  Your  faith  is  vain," 
not  only  without  foundation,  but  of  no  use.  The  promise  is 
made  of  none  effect,  i.  e.  is  invalidated;  see  ch.  3:  3,  31. 

(15)  Because  the  laiv  worketh  ivrath,  &c.  This  verse  is  not 
to  be  connected  with  the  14th,  as  the  punctuation  in  our  version 
would  intimate,  as  though  it  contained  a  proof  of  the  declaration 
there  made,  that  fiiith  and  the  promise  would  be  invalidated,  if 
works  were  made  the  ground  of  acceptance.  For  although  it  is 
true,  that  this  conclusion  would  follow,  from  the  nature  of  the 
law,  inasmuch  as  it  requires  perfect  obedience,  and  all  who 
trust  in  it  are  under  the  curse,  and  of  course  not  the  heirs  of 
the  promise;  yet  this  idea  is  not  presented  as  a  proof  that  the 
promise  must  fail.  That  was  proved  in  a  different  way  in  the 
previous  verse.  The  argument  from  the  nature  of  the  law  is 
intended  to  bear  on  the  general  proposition  that  justification  is 
not  by  works.  This  verse,  therefore,  contains  tlie  fourth  argu- 
ment in  the  apostle's  reasoning  in  support  of  his  main  doctrine. 

Worketh  wrath,  i.  e.  causes  men  to  suffer  wrath  or  punish- 
ment. This,  however,  the  law  does  in  two  ways,  and,  therefore, 
there  are  two  methods  of  exj)laining  this  verse.  The  law  is 
condemnatory,  its  sanction  or  penalty  is  an  essential  part  of  it, 
and  it  is  only  in  vii'tuc  of  law  that  sin  is  punished;  for  sin  is 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  151 

not  imputed  or  punished  where  there  is  no  law;  or,  where  there 
is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  The  idea  and  argument 
then  are,  that  it  is  the  office  of  the  law  to  condemn  and  not  to 
justify.  As  it  requires  perfect  obedience,  and  says,  "  cursed  is 
every  one  who  continucth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them,"  all  who  are  under  the  law  are  under 
the  curse.  For  sinners,  therefore,  salvation  by  the  law  is  from 
its  very  nature  impossible.  According  to  this  view,  the  argument 
of  the  apostle  is  analagous  to  that  in  Gal.  3:  10.  But  there  is 
another  way  in  which  the  law  works  wrath;  it  excites  and  ex- 
asperates the  evil  passions  of  the  heart.  Not  from  any  defect, 
indeed,  in  the  law  itself,  but  from  the  nature  of  sin.  This  idea 
the  apostle  frequently  presents,  7:  5,  &c.,  8:  3.  The  meaning 
then  is,  that  the  law  which,  instead  of  freeing  men  from  sin, 
incidentally  renders  these  transgressions  more  numerous  and 
conspicuous,  and  thus  l;rings  them  more  and  more  under  con- 
demnation, is  not,  from  its  nature,  capable  of  securing  the  justi- 
fication of  men.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  commonly  received 
view  of  the  passage.  So  Calvin,*  Tholuck,  &c.  The  former, 
however,  seems  more  natural  and  better  suited  to  the  context. 

For  where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  The 
meaning  given  to  this  clause  depends  upon  the  view  taken 
of  the  preceding  one.  Calvin  and  others  understand  it  as  ex- 
plaining the  method  in  which  the  law  works  wrath,  or  calls 
down  the  displeasure  of  God.  It  is  because  sin,  by  the  know- 
ledge imparted  by  the  law,  is  rendered  less  excusable,  and  de- 
serving of  severer  punishment.!  Transgression  is  understood 
emphatically,  for  the  contumacious  violation  of  the  known  will 
of  God.  J    But,  according  to  the  former  of  the  two  explanations 

*  Nam  quum  Lex  nihil  quam  ultioncm  generet,  not  potest  afferre  gratiam. 
Quae  enini  est  naturae  nostrae  visiositas,  quo  niagis  docemur,  quid  rectum  sit  ac 
justum,  CO  apertius  nostra  iniquitas  dctcgitur,  inaximeque  contumacia:  atque  lioc 
niodo  gravius  Dei  judicium  accersitur. 

■\  Ea  autem  est,  quia  cognitione  justitiae  Dei  per  legem  percepta  eo  gravius  pec- 
camus  in  Deum,  quo  minus  excusationis  nobis  superest. 

t  Atque  ut  uno  verbo  dicam,  transgressio  hie  non  est  simplex  delictum,  sed  dcs- 
tinatam  in  violanda  justitia  contumaciam  significat. — Caitin. 

Much  to  same  effect,  Bengel  says,  "  Non  dicit:  ne  peccatitm  qitidem, — 
transgressio  expressius  refertur  ad  legem,  quae  violatur.  Transgressio  iram  con- 
citat."  And  Ghotius'  comment  is,  Non  dicit:  7ion  esse peccatum,  sed  non  esse 
DN*^'  i.  c.  contemptutii  legis  a  Deo  non  per  collectiones  sed  exprcssim  datae. 


152  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

given  of  the  first  clause,  this  more  naturally  expresses  the  gen- 
eral idea  that  law  and  transgression  are  correlative  terms;  the 
latter  implies  the  former.  If  there  were  no  law  there  could  be 
no  transgression,  and,  therefore,  no  punishment.  It  is  the  law, 
therefore,  which  gives  sin  its  condemning  power.  This  being 
the  case,  it  is  obvious  that  the  law  which  secures  the  punishment 
of  sin,  cannot  be  the  means  of  the  sinner's  justification. 

(16)  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  of  grace;  to 
the  end  that  the  promise  ?night  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  &c. 
This  and  the  following  verse  contain  the  conclusion  from  the 
previous  reasoning,  and  especially  from  the  two  preceding  ar- 
guments. The  expression  in  the  original  is  simply  therefore 
of  faith.  It  matters  little,  as  to  the  sense,  whether  the  words 
tve  are  heirs  be  supplied  from  v.  14,  or  the  word  proryiise  from 
V.  13th.  'Therefore  the  promise  is  of  faith,'  that  it  might  be 
of  grace,  see  vs.' 4,  5,  i.  e.  not  of  works;  for  if  of  works,  as 
Paul  had  just  shown,  the  covenant  would  be  broken,  and  the 
promise  invalidated.  If  this  condition  be  insisted  upon,  no 
one,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  law,  can  be  saved.  But  be- 
ing of  faith  and  gratuitous,  it  is  sure  to  all  the  seed.  The  words 
rendered  to  the  end,  are  the  same  as  those  which  occur,  v.  1 1 , 
and  express  either  the  design  or  result.  The  sense  may  there- 
fore be,  '  It  is  of  faith,  in  order  that  it  might  be  sure,  &c.'  or,  '  It 
is  of  faith,  and  hence  is  sure,  &c.'  To  all  the  seed,  i.  e.  all  the 
children  of  Abraham,  as  well  those  ivhich  are  of  the  law,  i.  e. 
Jews,  see  Acts  10:  45,  &c.,  as  those  ivhich  are  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  i.  e.  the  Gentiles,  whose  only  bond  of  union  with 
Abraham  is  the  possession  of  the  same  faith  which  he  had;  see 
Gal.  3:  7,  &c.  Who  is  the  father  of  us  all.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  Abraham  is  the  father,  the  head  and  leader  of  all  be- 
lievers who  are  his  children,  because  they  are  like  him,  and 
heirs  of  the  promise  made  to  him,  whether  they  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles.  Gal.  3:  29,  "If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

(17)  j2s  it  is  ivrittcn,  I  have  made  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions, Gen.  17:  5.  This  declaration,  the  apostle  informs  us, 
contains  a  great  deal  more  than  the  assurance  that  the  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  very  numerous.  Taken  in 
connexion  with  the  promise,  that  "  in  him  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed,"  it  refers  to  his  spiritual  as  well  as  his 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  153 

natural  seed,  and  finds  its  full  accomplishment  in  the  extension 
of  the  blessing  promised  to  him,  to  those  of  all  nations  who  are 
his  children  by  faith.  This  clause  is  very  properly  marked  as 
a  parenthesis,  as  the  preceding  one,  "  who  is  the  father  of  us 
all"  must  be  connected  immediately  with  the  following  words, 
before  him  whom  he  believed,  even  God  who  quickeneth  the 
dead,  &c.  The  original  here  is  very  difficult.  The  two  most 
probable  explanations  are  the  following,  1.  That  which  resolves 
the  sentence  much  in  the  same  manner  as  in  our  own  version,* 
"  Before  God,  in  whom  he  believed,"  i.  e.  he  is  the  father  of 
us  all,  in  the  sight  or  estimation  of  that  God  in  whom  he  be- 
lieved; compare  Luke  1:  3  and  Ex.  6:  12.  34:  34,  intheLXX. 
2.  The  construction  of  the  sentence  is  explained  in  the  manner 
just  stated,  but  the  word  rendered  before  is  translated  by  or 
through.  The  sense  then  is,  '  He  is,  or  is  made  the  father  of  all 
by  that  God  in  whom  he  believed.'  But  this  interpretation  is 
destitute  of  sufficient  philological  support.  Neither  the  Greek 
nor  the  corresponding  Hebrew  term  means  by  or  through.  In 
2  Sam.  7:  16,  the  passage  referred  to  by  Koppe,  the  common 
sense  may  well  be  retained.  The  first  explanation  is,  therefore, 
to  be  preferred. 

God  is  here  described  as  quickening  the  dead,  and  calling 
those  things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were.  This  pas- 
sage is  very  variously  explained.  It  may  be  considered,  1.  As 
a  description  of  the  omnipotence  of  God.  The  promise  made 
to  Abraham  seemed  impossible  of  fulfilment,  yet  he  believed 
in  that  Almighty  God  '  who  quickens  the  dead,  and  calls,  i.  e. 
commands  and  controls,  things  that  are  not  as  though  they  were.' 
The  words  rendered  as  though  they  were,  are  by  some  rendered 
into  being,  or  so  that  they  are.  But  this  they  will  hardly  ad- 
mit of.  See  Eisner  in  loc.  and  compare  Is.  41 :  4.  48:  13, "  I  call 
unto  them,  they  stand  up  together."  2.  It  may  be  explained 
more  in  reference  to  the  divine  omniscience.  God  foresaw 
how  numerous  would  be  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  He 
was  declared  to  be  the  father  of  many  nations  in  the  sight  of 
that  God  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  who  wakes  up 
the  dead,  and  before  whom  the  future  and  the  present,  the  non- 
existent and  the  already  existing  are  alike.     Both  these  ideas 

*  KaTg'vavTi  ou  sirldTSvds  Osou,  for,  xarsvavri  Qsov,  u  iiri(fTSv(ft. 
20 


154  ROMANS  4:  1—17. 

may  be  united;  the  object  of  Abraham's  faith  was  the  Almighty 
and  All-seeing  God,  who  sees  and  controls  the  living  and  the 
dead,  the  future  and  the  present,  with  equal  ease.  The  idea  of 
the  divine  power  is  so  prominently  presented  in  the  following 
verses  19 — 21,  that  it  certainly  should  not  be  omitted  here. 
3.  The  word  to  call  is  taken  in  its  common  New  Testament 
sense,  for  calling  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  ch.  8 :  30.  Gal. 
1:  6.  5:  8,  &c.  &c.  The  sense  then  is,  'Who  calls  those  who 
are  not  yet  in  being  to  be  the  children  of  Abraham  (i.  e.  into 
the  kingdom  of  Christ),  as  though  they  were  already  in  exist- 
ence;' thus  Abraham  was  ah'eady,  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  father 
of  many  nations  of  spiritual  children.  It  seems,  however, 
most  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  manner,  and  most  suited 
to  the  context,  to  consider  the  passage  as  a  general  description 
of  the  divine  perfections.  When  Paul  speaks  of  God,  espe- 
cially as  the  object  of  faith,  it  is  not  unusual  for  him  to  add 
some  descriptive  clause,  declarative  of  some  of  his  attributes  or 
acts,  as  the  special  ground  of  confidence;  compare  v.  24. 

Doctrines. 

1.  If  the  greatest  and  best  men  of  the  old  dispensation  had 
to  renounce  entirely  dependence  upon  their  works,  and  to  ac- 
cept of  the  favour  of  God  as  a  gratuity,  justification  by  works 
must,  for  all  men,  be  impossible,  vs.  2,  3. 

2.  No  man  can  glory,  that  is,  complacently  rejoice  in  his 
own  goodness  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  this  every  man  of  an 
enlightened  conscience  feels.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by 
works,  therefore,  is  inconsistent  with  the  inward  testimony  of 
conscience,  and  can  never  give  true  peace  of  mind,  v.  2. 

3.  The  two  methods  of  justification  cannot  be  united.  They 
are  as  inconsistent  as  wages  and  a  free  gift.  If  of  works,  it  is 
not  of  grace;  and  if  of  grace,  it  is  not  of  works,  vs.  4,  5. 

4.  As  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  it  cannot  be  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  merit,  but  must  be  by  the  imputation  of  a  right- 
eousness which  does  not  personally  belong  to  them,  and  which 
they  received  by  faith,  vs.  5,  6,  11. 

5.  The  blessings  of  the  gospel,  and  the  method  of  justifica- 
cation  which  it  proposes,  are  suited  to  all  men;  and  are  not  to 
be  confined  by  sectarian  limits,  or  bound  down  to  ceremonial 
observances,  vs.  9 — 11. 


ROMANS  4:  1—17.  155 

6.  The  sacraments  and  ceremonies  of  the  church,  although 
in  the  highest  degree  useful,  when  viewed  in  their  proper  light, 
become  ruinous  when  perverted  into  grounds  of  confidence. 
What  answers  well  as  a  sign,  is  a  miserable  substitute  for  the 
thing  signified.  Circumcision  will  not  serve  for  righteousness, 
nor  baptism  for  regeneration,  v.  10. 

7.  As  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  believers,  all  believers 
are  brethren.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  bond  nor  free 
among  them  as  Christians,  vs.  11,  12. 

8.  The  seed  of  Abraham,  or  true  believers,  with  Jesus  Christ 
their  head,  are  the  heirs  of  the  world.  To  them  it  will  ulti- 
mately belong;  even  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  shall  be 
their  possession,  v.  13. 

9.  To  speak  of  justification  by  obedience  to  a  law  which  we 
have  broken  is  a  solecism.  That  which  condemns  cannot  jus- 
tify, V.  15. 

10.  Nothing  is  sure  for  sinners  that  is  not  gratuitous.  A 
promise  suspended  on  obedience  they  could  never  render 
sure.  One  entirely  gratuitous  needs  only  to  be  accepted  to  be- 
come ours,  V.  16. 

11.  It  is  the  entire  freeness  of  the  gospel,  and  its  requiring 
faith  as  the  condition  of  acceptance,  which  renders  it  suited  to 
all  ages -and  nations,  v.  16. 

12.  The  proper  object  of  faith  is  the  divine  promise;  or  God 
considered  as  able  and  determined  to  accomplish  his  word,  v.  17. 

1.  The  renunciation  of  a  legal  self-righteous  spirit  is  the  first 
requisition  of  the  gospel.  This  must  be  done,  or  the  gospel 
cannot  be  accepted.  '  He  who  works,'  i.  e.  who  trusts  in  his 
works,  refuses  to  be  saved  by  grace,  vs.  1 — 5. 

2.  The  more  intimately  we  are  acquainted  with  our  own 
hearts  and  with  the  character  of  God,  the  more  ready  shall  we 
be  to  renounce  our  own  righteousness  and  to  trust  in  his  mercy, 
vs.  2,  3. 

3.  Those  only  are  truly  happy  and  secure  who,  under  a  sense 
of  ill-desert  and  helplessness,  cast  themselves  upon  the  grace 
and  promise  of  God,  vs.  7,  8. 

4.  Nothing  is  more  natural,  and  nothing  has  occurred  more 
extensively  in  the  Christian  church,  than  the  perversion  of  the 


156  ROMANS  4:  18—25. 

means  of  grace  into  grounds  of  dependence.  Thus  it  was  with 
circumcision,  and  thus  it  is  with  baptism,  the  Lord's  supper; 
thus  too  with  prayer,  fasting,  &c.  &c.  This  is  the  rock  on 
which  millions  have  been  shipwrecked,  vs.  9 — 12. 

5.  There  is  no  hope  for  those,  who,  forsaking  the  grace  of 
God,  take  refuge  in  a  law  which  worketh  wrath,  v.  15. 

6.  All  things  are  ours  if  we  are  Christ's.  Heirs  of  the  life 
that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come,  v.  13. 

7.  As  the  God  in  whom  believers  trust,  is  he  to  whom  all 
things  are  known,  and  all  things  are  subject,  they  should  be 
strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  v.  17. 

CHAP.  4:  18—25. 
Jinalysis. 
The  object  of  this  section  is  the  illustration  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  and  the  application  of  his  case  to  our  instruction. 
With  regard  to  Abraham's  faith,  the  apostle  states,  first,  its 
object,  viz.  the  divine  promise,  v.  18.  He  then  illustrates  its 
strength,  by  a  reference  to  the  apparent  impossibility  of  the 
thing  promised,  vs.  19,  20.  The  ground  of  this  confidence  was 
the  power  and  veracity  of  God,  v.  21.  The  consequence  was 
that  Abraham  was  justified  by  his  faith,  v.  22.  Hence  it  is  to 
be  inferred  that  this  is  the  true  method  of  justification;  for  the 
record  was  made  to  teach  us  this  truth.  We  are  situated  as 
Abraham  was;  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  in  the  Almighty 
God,  who,  by  raising  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  has  accepted  him 
as  the  proi)itiation  for  our  sins,  vs.  2.3 — 25. 

Commentary. 
(18)  Who  against  hope  believed  in  hope,  that  is,  who 
against  all  apparent  ground  of  hope,  confidently  believed.  In 
hope,  with  hope,  or  confidently.  Acts  2:  2G.  1  Cor.  9:  10,  &c. 
&c.  That  he  might  becom^e  the  father'  of  many  nations. 
This  clause,  as  it  stands  in  the  Greek,  may  express  either  the 
design  with  which  he  believed,  or  the  result  of  his  believing, 
or  finally  the  object  of  his  faith.  '  He  believed  in  order  that  he 
might  be  the  father;'  or,  '  He  believed,  and  hence  became  the 
father,  &c.;'  or,  '  He  believed  that  he  should  be  the  father,  &c.' 
The  last  would  seem   best  to  suit  the  context,  but  it  is  not  so 


ROMANS  4:  18—25.  157 

consistent  with  the  construction  of  the  passage.  According  io 
that  ivhich  ivas  spoken,  so  shall  thy  seed  be.  This  is  a 
reference  to  the  promise  which  was  the  object  of  Abraham's 
faith.  It  is  a  quotation  from  Gen.  15:5.  The  word  so  refers 
to  the  stars  of  heaven,  mentioned  in  the  passage  as  it  stands  in 
the  Old  Testament,  The  promise,  therefore,  particularly  in- 
tended by  the  apostle,  is,  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of 
many  nations,  or  that  his  seed  should  be  as  numerous  as  the 
stars.  It  has  already  been  seen,  however,  that  the  apostle 
understood  this  promise  as  including  far  more  than  that  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  very  numerous;  see 
vs.  13,  17.  The  expression  in  the  text  is  a  concise  allusion  to 
the  various  promises  made  to  the  ancient  patriarch,  which  had 
reference  to  all  nations  being  blessed  through  him.  The 
promise  of  a  numerous  posterity,  therefore,  included  the  promise 
of  Christ  and  his  redemption.  This  is  evident,  1.  Because  Paul 
had  been  speaking  of  a  promise,  v.  16,  in  which  believing  Jews 
and  Gentiles  were  alike  interested;  see  Gal.  3:  14.  2.  Because 
Paul  asserts  and  argues  that  the  seed  promised  to  Abraham,  and 
to  which  the  promise  related,  was  Jesus  Christ,  Gal.  3:  16. 
3.  So  Abraham  himself  understood  it,  according  to  the  declaration 
of  our  Saviour;  John  8:  56,  "  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day, 
and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad."  He  looked  forward  under  the 
greatest  discouragements  to  the  Redeemer  as  yet  to  come;  we 
have  the  easier  task  to  look  back  to  the  same  Deliverer,  who 
has  died  for  our  sins,  and  risen  again  for  our  justification,  v.  25. 
(19)  Jind  not  being  weak  in  faith,  he  considered  not  his 
own  body,  now  dead,  &c.  The  18th  verse  had  stated  it  was 
contrary  to  all  appearances  that  Abraham  believed;  this  verse 
states  the  circumstances  which  rendered  the  accomplishment  of 
the  promise  an  apparent  impossibility,  viz.  his  own  advanced 
age,  and  the  age  and  barrenness  of  his  wife.  These  circum- 
.  stances  he  did  not  consider,  that  is,  he  did  not  allow  them  to 
have  weight,  he  did  not  fix  his  mind  on  the  difficulties  of  the 
case.  Had  he  been  w^eak  in  faith,  and  allowed  himself  to  dwell 
on  the  obstacles  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  he  would 
have  staggered.* 

*  The  fact  that  Abraham,  many  years  after  the  promise  of  the  birth  of  Isaac,  had 
several  children  by  Keturah,  can  create  no  difficulty,  as  the  effect  of  the  divnie 
power  doubtless  remained. 


158  ROMANS  4:  18— 25. 

(20)  He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God  through 
iinhellef,  &c.  The  word  rendered  to  stagger,  signifies,  in  the 
middle  voice,  to  contend  with  any  one,  to  he  in  strife  with 
one\^  self,  to  doubt  or  hesitate.  Matt.  21:  21,  "If  ye  have 
foil h,  and  doubt  not,  &c."  '  He  was  not  in  doubt  as  to  the 
promise,  &c.;'  see  the  same  use  of  the  preposition  (sis).  Acts  25: 
20.  Luke  12:  21,  &c.  &c.  But  was  strong  in  faith,  giving 
glory  to  God,  that  is,  giving  God  credit  for  veracity  and  power, 
influenced  by  a  reverential  conviction  of  the  truth  and  ability  of 
him  who  had  given  the  promise.  To  give  glory  to  God  is  to 
feel  and  act  in  a  manner  becoming  the  divine  character,  see  1 
Sam.  6:  5;  and  also  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  him  to  be  honoured 
by  others.  Josh.  7:19,  &c.  &c.  To  believe  the  divine  declara- 
tions, is,  therefore,  the  highest  honour  we  can  render  God,  and 
to  disbelieve  them  is  a  great  offence  to  the  divine  majesty; 
compare  1  John  5:  10.* 

(21)  And  being  fully  persuaded  that  what  he  had  pro- 
viiscd  he  was  able  also  to  perform.  This  verse  is  an  ampli- 
fication and  explanation  of  the  last  clause  of  fhe  preceding  one. 
He  gave  glory  to  God  by  being  fully  persuaded  that  he  was 
able  to  perform  his  promise.  The  ground  of  Abraham's  confi- 
dence, therefore,  w\as  not  the  nature  of  the  thing  promised,  nor 
the  facility  of  its  attainment,  but  the  divine  character  and 
attributes. 

(22)  Therefore  it  ivas  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness. 
The  it  of  course  refers  to  the  extraordinary  faith  spoken  of 
above.  It  was  imputed  to  him  in  order  to  his  being  regarded 
and  treated  as  righteous;  sec  above  on  v,  3. 

(23)  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was 
iinputed  to  him.  This  and  the  following  verses  contain  the 
application  of  the  case  of  Abraham  to  our  instruction.  Paul 
says  that  the  record  concerning  the  justification  of  Abraham, 
was  not  made  merely  that  we  might  know  that  he  was  a  right- 
eous man;  or,  as  though  justification  by  faith  were  something 
peculiar  to  him. 

•  Quod  aJdit,  dt'disse  gloriam  Deo,  in  oo  notaii(Uim  est,  non  posse  Deo  plus 
honoris  dpferri  (juam  durn  fide  obsignanius  ejus  veritatem;  sieuti  rursuni  nulla  ei 
gravior  contumelia  inuri  potest  quani  dum  respviitur  ol)Iata  al)  ipso  gratia,  vol  ejus 
vcrbo derogatur  auetoritas.  Quare  hoc  in  ejus  cultu  i)raccipuuni  est  caput,  promis- 
siones  ejus  obedicntcr  amplecti;  vcraquc  rcligio  a  fide  incipit. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  4:  18— 25.  159 

(24)  But  for  us  also,  to  lohom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we 
believe,  kc.  The  fact  that  faith  was  imputed  to  Abraham  for 
his  justification  was  placed  on  record  that  we  might  learn  the 
true  method  of  justification.  As  all  men  are  sinners,  and  con- 
sequently stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God,  the  method  in 
which  he  justifies  one,  is  the  same  as  that  in  which  he  justifies 
all;  see  3:  9,  22.  The  object  of  our  faith  is  described  as  God 
that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  froni  the  dead.  The  object  of 
Abraham's  faith  was  the  Almighty  and  Omniscient  God,  who 
had  promised  to  raise  up  to  him  a  seed  in  whom  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  The  object  of  our  faith  is  this 
same  God  considered  as  recognizing  Jesus  our  Lord  to  be  this 
long  promised  seed  and  deliverer,  by  raising  him  from  the  dead. 

When  we  are  said  to  believe  in  God  who  raised  up  Christ, 
it  of  course  implies  that  we  believe  thatChrist  was  thus  raised  up. 
As  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  great  decisive  evidence 
of  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  and  the  validity  of  all  his  claims, 
to  believe  that  he  rose  from  the  dead  is  to  believe  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  the  Redeemer  and  the 
Lord  of  men;  that  he  was  all  he  claimed  to  be,  and  had  accom- 
plished all  he  purposed  to  effect;  compare  Rom.  10:  9.  Acts  1: 
22.  4:  33.  1  Cor.  15,  and  other  passages,  in  which  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  gospel,  as 
the  great  fact  to  be  proved,  and  which,  being  proved,  involves 
all  the  rest. 

(25)  Who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised  again 
for  our  justification.  This  verse  is  a  comprehensive  statement 
of  the  gospel.  Christ  was  delivered  unto  death  for  our  offences, 
i.  e.  on  account  of  them,  and  for  their  expiation;  see  Is.  53:  5,  6. 
Heb.  9:  28.  1  Peter  2:21.  This  delivering  of  Christ  is  ascribed 
to  God,  Rom.  8:  32.  Gal.  1:  3,  and  elsewhere;  and  to  himself. 
Tit.  2:14.  Gal.  2 :  20.  It  was  by  the  divine  purpose  and  counsel 
he  suffered  for  the  expiation  of  sin;  and  he  gave  himself  will- 
ingly to  death.  "  He  was  led  like  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and 
as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his 
mouth." 

Jlnd  luas  raised  again  for  our  Justification,  i.  e.  that  we 
might  be  justified.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  was  necessary 
for  our  justification,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  formal  acceptance 
of  his  sufferings,  as  the  expiation  for  our  sins.    Had  he  not  risen 


160  ROMANS  4:  18— 25. 

wc  should  be  yet  under  condemnation,  1  Cor.  15:  17.  But  as 
he  rose  from  the  dead,  he  was  accepted  of  the  Father,  and  ap- 
peared as  the  first  fruits,  i.  e.  the  forerunner  and  pledge  of  the 
resurrection  and  complete  salvation  of  all  his  people.  In  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  apostle  presents  this  idea  under 
another  form.  As  it  was  necessary,  on  the  great  day  of 
atonement,  that  the  High  Priest  should  not  only  slay  the 
victim  at  the  altar,  but  enter  into  the  most  holy  ])lace,  and 
sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  mercy-seat;  so  our  High  Priest, 
having  suffered  in  the  outer-court,  has  passed  into  the  heavens 
with  his  own  blood,  there  to  appear  for  our  justification;  that 
is,  to  secure  for  us  the  continued  application  of  the  merits  of  his 
death.  Either,  therefore,  as  the  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of 
his  sufferings  as  our  substitute,  or  as  a  necessary  step  towards 
securing  the  application  of  their  merit  to  our  benefit,  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  was  essential  to  our  justification. 

Doctrines. 

1.  Faith  is  an  operative  assent  to  the  divine  testimony,  not 
the  reception  of  truth,  as  something  which  can  be  proved  by 
our  own  arguments,  vs.  18,  20. 

2.  When  faith  is  genuine  it  is  founded  on  correct  apprehen- 
sions of  the  divine  character,  and  has  a  controlling  influence 
over  the  heart  and  life,  vs.  20,  21. 

3.  The  method  of  salvation  has  never  been  changed;  Abra- 
ham was  not  only  saved  by  faith,  but  the  object  of  his  faith 
was  the  same  as  the  object  of  ours,  vs.  24,  17. 

4.  The  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  an  historical  fact,  established 
by  the  most  satisfactory  evidence  (see  1  Cor.  15),  authenticates 
the  whole  gospel.  As  surely  as  Christ  has  risen,  so  surely  shall 
believers  be  saved,  v.  25. 

Remarks. 

1.  The  true  way  to  liave  our  faith  strengthened  is  not  to 
consider  the  difTiculties  in  the  way  of  the  thing  promised,  but 
the  character  and  resources  of  God  who  has  made  the  pro- 
mise, v.  19. 

2.  It  is  as  possible  for  faith  to  be  strong  when  the  thing  pro- 
mised is  most  improbable,  as  when  it  is  probable.  Abraham's 
faith  siiould  serve  as  an  example  and  admonition  to  us.     He 


ROMANS  5:  1—11.  161 

believed  that  a  Saviour  would  be  born  from  his  family  when 
his  having  a  son  was  an  apparent  impossibility.  We  are  only 
called  upon  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  has  been  born,  has  suf- 
fered and  risen  again  from  the  dead:  facts  established  on  the 
strongest  historical  evidence,  vs.  20,  24,  25. 

3.  Unbelief  is  a  very  great  sin,  as  it  implies  a  doubt  of  the 
veracity  and  power  of  God,  vs.  20,  21. 

4.  All  that  is  written  in  the  scriptures  is  for  our  instruction. 
What  is  promised,  commanded  or  threatened  (unless  of  a  strictly 
personal  nature),  although  addressed  originally  to  individuals, 
belongs  to  them  only  as  representatives  of  classes  of  men,  and 
is  designed  for  all  of  similar  character  and  in  similar  circum- 
stances, V.  23. 

5.  The  two  great  truths  of  the  gospel  are  that  Christ  died  as 
a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  that  he  rose  again  for  our  justifica- 
tion. Whosoever,  from  the  heart,  believes  these  truths  shall 
be  saved,  v.  25.  Rom.  10:  9. 

6.  The  denial  of  the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ,  or  of  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  is  a  denial  of  the  gospel.  It  is  a 
refusing  to  be  saved  according  to  the  method  which  God  has 
appointed,  v.  25. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Contents. 

From  verse  1  to  11  inclusive,  the  apostle  deduces  some  of 
the  more  obvious  and  consolatory  inferences  from  the  doctrine 
of  gratuitous  justification.  From  the  1 2th  verse  to  the  end, 
he  illustrates  his  great  principle  of  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness, or  the  regarding  and  treating  "  the  many"  as  righteous, 
on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  one  man  Christ  Jesus,  by  a 
reference  to  the  fall  of  all  men  in  Adam. 

CHAP.  5:  1—11. 

Analysis. 
The   first  consequence  of  justification  by  faith  is,  that  we 
have  peace  with  God,  v.  1.     The  second,  that  we  have  ready 

21 


162  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

access  to  his  presence,  a  sense  of  his  present  favour  and  as- 
surance of  future  glory,  v.  2.  The  third,  that  our  afflictions, 
instead  of  being  inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  are  made 
directly  conducive  to  the  confirmation  of  our  hope;  the  Holy 
Spirit  bearing  witness  to  the  fact  that  we  are  the  objects  of  the 
love  of  God,  vs.  3—5.  The  fourth,  the  certainty  of  the  final 
salvation  of  all  believers.  This  is  argued  from  the  freeness  and 
greatness  of  the  divine  love.  Its  freeness  being  manifested  in 
its  exercise  towards  the  unworthy;  and  its  greatness  in  the  gift 
of  the  Son  of  God,  vs.  6—10.  Salvation  is  not  merely  a  fu- 
ture though  certain  good;  it  is  a  present  and  abundant  joy,  v.  1 1. 

Commtntary. 
(1)  Therefore  being  justified  by  faith,  ice  have*  peace 
\oith  God,  that  is,  we  are  reconciled  to  God.  We  are  no  longer 
the  objects  of  the  divine  displeasure,  his  favour  having  been 
propitiated  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  v.  10.  As  a  consequence 
of  this  reconciliation,  we  have  conscious  peace  with  God,  that 
is,  we  have  neither  any  longer  the  present  upbraidings  of  an 
unappeased  conscience,  nor  the  dread  of  divine  vengeance. 
Both  of  these  ideas  are  included  in  the  peace  here  spoken  of. 
It  is  peculiarly  an  evangelical  doctrine,  that  pious  affections  are 
the  fruit  of  this  reconciliation  to  God,  and  not  the  cause  of  it. 
Paul  says  this  peace  is  the  result  of  justification  by  faith.  He 
who  relies  on  his  works  for  justification  can  have  no  peace. 
He  can  neither  remove  the  displeasure  of  God,  nor  quiet  the 
apprehension  of  punishment.  Peace  is  not  the  result  of  mere 
gratuitous  forgiveness,  but  of  justification,  of  a  reconciliation 
founded  upon  atonement.  The  enlightened  conscience  is  never 
satisfied  until  it  sees  that  God  can  be  just  in  justifying  the  un- 
godly; that  sin  has  been  punished,  the  justice  of  God  satisfied, 
his  law  honoured  and  vindicated.  It  is  when  he  thus  sees 
justice  and  mercy  embracing  each  other,  that  the  believer  has 
that  peace  which  passes  all  understanding;  that  sweet  quiet  of 

•  Instead  of  tvofxsv  luc  have  peace,  sp^w/LiSv  let  7is  have  is  read  in  the 
MSa  A.  C.  D.  17,  18,  19,  22,  24,  34,  3G,  37,  42,  44,  46,  55,  66,  in  the  Syriac, 
Coptic,  Vulgate  versions,  and  by  several  of  the  fiithers.  The  latter  reading  is 
adopted  by  Lachmann.  But  as  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided, 
:ind  as  the  conunon  reading  gives  a  sense  so  much  better  suited  to  the  context,  it  is 
retained  by,  the  majority  of  critical  editors. 


ROMANS  5:  1—1 L  163 

the  soul  in  which  deep  humility,  in  view  of  personal  unworthi- 
ness,  is  mingled  with  the  warmest  gi-atitude  to  that  Saviour  by 
whose  blood  God's  justice  has  been  satisfied  and  conscience  ap- 
peased. Hence,  Paul  says  we  have  this  peace  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  through  ourselves  in  any  way, 
neither  by  our  own  merit  nor  our  own  efforts.  It  is  all  of 
grace.  It  is  all  through  Jesus  Christ.  And  this  the  justified 
soul  is  ever  anxious  to  acknowledge.* 

(2)  By  whom  also  we  have  access  by  faith  into  this  grace 
ivherein  we  stand,  &c.  It  would  seem  obvious,  from  the  use 
of  the  word  also,  that  this  verse  expresses  a  distinct  idea  from 
the  preceding.  The  passage  admits  of  different  explanations. 
By  putting  a  comma  after  access,  and  changing  into  for  z??, 
which  the  original  admits  of,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  "  We 
have  access  to  God,  by  faith  in  that  grace  (i.  e.  system  or  doc- 
trine of  grace)  in  which  we  stand."  This  gives  a  very  good 
sense,  and  is  recommended  by  the  consideration  that  wherever 
access  is  elsewhere  spoken  of,  it  is  not  access  into  a  state  of 
grace,  but  access  to  God;  see  Eph.  2:  18,  and  also  by  implica- 
tion, in  Eph.  3:  12;  see  also  1  Pet.  3:  18.  2.  The  most  com- 
mon and  natural  construction,  how^ever,  is  to  connect  the  word 
grace  with  access,  i.  e.  "  access  into  this  grace."  Grace,  then, 
or  favour  expresses  the  same  idea  as  peace  with  God,  in  the 
preceding  verse;  and  the  difference  between  the  two  verses  is 
to  be  found  in  the  word  access  or  introduction.  The  meaning 
then  is, '  We  are  not  only  indebted  to  Jesus  Christ  for  peace 
with  God,  but  also  for  our  introduction  into  this  state  of  fa- 
vour;' which  includes,  of  course,  liberty  of  access  to  God.t 
3.  The  word  grace  may  be  taken  metonymically  for  its  effects, 
that  is,  for  the  blessings  or  benefits  which  God  graciously  be- 
stows. '  We  have  not  only  peace,  but  free  access  to  all  the 
blessings  of  the  divine  favour.'      The  second   interpretation 

*  Pacem  habemus.  Singularis  justitiae  fidei  fructus.  Nam  siquis  ab  operibus 
conscientiae  securitatem  petere  velit  (quod  in  profanis  et  brutis  hominibus  cernitur), 
frustra  id  tentabit.  Aut  enim  contcmptu  vel  oblivione  Divini  judicii  sopitum  est 
pectus,  aut  trepidatione  ac  /ormidine  quoque  plenum  est,  donee  in  Cliristum  reou- 
buerit.  Ipse  enira  solus  eat  pax  nostra.  Pax  ergo  conscientiae  serenitatem  sjgniticat, 
quae  ex  eo  nascitur,  quod  Deum  sibi  reconciliatum  sentit. — Calvin. 

I  Non  tantum  gratiam  ipsam  Dei  restitutam  debemus  Christo,  scd  etiam  ejus- 
(lem  cognoscendae  et  fide  amplectendae  occasioiiem,  vim  atque  facidtatem. — 

KoPPE. 


164  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

seems  the  most  natural,  and  is  the  one  most  commonly  received. 
Wherein  we  stand,  i.  e.  which  we  now  possess  or  enjoy.*  Or 
the  phrase  may  be  taken  in  a  forensic  sense,  as  in  Ps.  1 :  5. 
130:  3,  'In  which  state  of  grace  we  stand  acquitted  or  justi- 
fied.' The  word  wherein  must  refer  to  grace,  the  immediate 
antecedent,  and  not  to  faith  the  more  remote  one.  The  figura- 
tive language  here  used  is  peculiarly  expressive  and  appropriate. 
As  those  only  who  were  in  the  favour  of  ancient  monarchs 
could  freely  approach  them,  and  even  such  had  generally  to  be 
led  forward  by  an  '  introducer;'  so  Christ,  our  introducer,  se- 
cures access  for  us  into  the  favour  and  presence  of  God.  We 
come  not  of  ourselves,  but,  abashed  and  humbled,  are  led 
along  by  our  kind  mediator.  Chrysostom,  on  Eph.  2:  18,  re- 
marks, "  Paul  does  not  say  access  (-tt^oCoOov)  but  introduction 
(ir^oo'aj'wyvjv),  for  we  do  not  come  of  ourselves,  but  are  lead  by 
him  (Christ) ;  for  '  no  one,'  he  says,  '  cometh  unto  the  father 
but  by  me;'  and  again,  '  I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the 
life.'  " 

./?/^rf  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  There  are  two 
benefits  specified  in  this  verse.  The  first,  our  present  intro- 
duction into  a  state  of  favour  and  free  access  to  God;  and  the 
second,  the  joyful  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  that  is,  the  glory 
of  which  God  is  the  author.  The  word  glory  is  often  used  in 
reference  to  future  blessedness,  to  show  that  the  happiness  to 
be  enjoyed  hereafter  is  connected  with  the  exaltation  of  all  our 
powers,  and  of  our  sphere  of  activity. 

(3)  Jl7id  not  only  so,  but  we  glory  in  tribulations  also. 
Not  only  have  we  this  introduction  into  the  divine  favour,  and 
this  hope  of  future  glory,  but  we  glory  in  tribulations  also. 
Since  our  relation  to  God  is  changed,  the  relation  of  all  things 
to  us  is  changed.  Afflictions,  which  before  were  the  expressions 
of  God's  displeasure,  are  now  the  benevolent  and  !)eneficent 
manifestations  of  his  love.  And,  instead  of  being  inconsistent 
with  our  filial  relation  to  him,  they  serve  to  prove  that  he 
regards  and  loves  us  as  his  children;  Rom.  8:  18.  Heb.  12:  6. 
Tribulations,  therefore,  although  for  the  present  they  are  not 
joyous  but  grievous,  become  to  the  believer  matter  of  joy  and 

•  Non  igitur  qui  suhito  inipotu  ad  creilendum  iinpellitur  Mem  Imbet,  ut  inter 
fidelea  numeretur;  sed  qui  constanter  et  (ixo  (ut  ita  loijuar)  pcde  rcsidet  in  statione 
divinitus  sibi  ordinata,  ut  semper  Cluisto  adhacrcat. — Calvi.n. 


ROMANS  5:  1—11.  165 

thankfulness.  The  way  in  which  afflictions  become  thus  useful, 
and  consequently  the  ground  of  rejoicing,  the  apostle  imme- 
diately explains.  They  give  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  the 
Christian  graces,  and  these,  from  their  nature,  produce  hope, 
which  is  sustained  and  authenticated  by  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Tribulation  worketh  patience.  The  word  rendered 
patience  signifies  also  constancy,  perseverance.  Tribulation 
gives  occasion  to  exercise  and  manifest  a  patient  and  persevering 
adherence  to  truth  and  duty  under  trials. 

(4)  And  patience,  experience;  and  experience,  hope.  The 
word  translated  experience  means  properly,  1.  Trial  or  exjie- 
riment.  2  Cor.  8:2,"  Great  trial  of  affliction,"  i.  e.  trial  made 
by  affliction.  2.  It  means  the  result  of  such  trial,  evidence, 
experience.  3.  By  another  remove,  that  ivhich  has  been  tested 
and  approved.  As  one  or  the  other  of  these  significations  is 
adopted,  the  clause  is  variously  interpreted.  It  may  mean,  '  The 
endurance  of  afflictions  leads  to  the  trying  or  testing  of  one's 
own  heart;'  or  '  It  occasions  the  experience  of  the  divine  good- 
ness, or  of  gracious  exercises;'  or  '  It  produces  a  state  of  mind 
,which  is  the  object  of  approbation;'  or  '  It  produces  evidence, 
viz.  of  a  gracious  state.'  This  last  seems  most  consistent  with 
Paul's  use  of  the  word;  see  2  Cor.  2:  9,  "That  I  may  know  the 
proof  (evidence)  of  you;  whether  ye  be  obedient,  &c. ;"  Phil. 
2:  22,  "  Ye  know  the  proof  of  him,  &c."  This  sense  suits  the 
context  also.  'Tribulation  calls  forth  the  exercise  of  patience; 
and  the  exercise  of  this  patience  or  constancy  affords  evidence 
of  our  being  in  the  favour  of  God,  and  therefore  produces 
hope.' 

(5)  A}id  hope  maketh  not  ashamed.  The  hope  which  true 
believers  entertain,  founded  on  the  very  nature  of  pious  ex- 
ercises, shall  never  disappoint  them,  Ps.  22 :  5.  The  ground  of 
this  assurance,  however,  is  not  the  strength  of  our  purpose,  or 
confidence  in  our  own  goodness,  but  the  love  of  God.  The 
latter  clause  of  the  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  the  Christian's 
hope  shall  not  be  found  delusive;  it  is  because  the  love  of  God 
is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto 
us.  'The  love  of  God'  is  his  love  to  us,  and  not  ours  to  him, 
as  appears  from  the  following  verses,  in  which  the  apostle 
illustrates  the  greatness  and  freeness  of  this  love  by  a  reference 
to  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.      To  shed  abroad  is  to  com- 


166  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

mvinicate  abundantly,  and  hence  to  evince  clearly,  Acts  2:17. 
10:  45.  Tit,  3:  6.  This  manifestation  of  divine  love  is  not  any 
external  revelation  of  it  in  the  works  of  Providence,  or  even  in 
redemption,  but  it  is  in  our  hearts.  And  this  inward  persua- 
sion that  we  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of  God,  is  not  the  mere 
result  of  the  examination  of  evidence,  nor  is  it  a  vain  illusion, 
but  it  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  The  Spirit  itself  bear- 
eth  witness  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God," 
Rom.  8:  16.  2  Cor.  1:  21,  22.  Eph.  1:  14.  As,  however,  the 
Spirit  never  contradicts  himself,  he  never  bears  witness  that 
"the  children  of  the  Devil"  are  the  children  of  God;  that  is, 
that  the  unholy,  the  disodedient,  the  proud  or  malicious  are  the 
objects  of  the  divine  favour.  Any  reference,  therefore,  by  the 
immoral,  to  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  their  favour,  must  be 
vain  and  delusive. 

(6)  For  when  ive  were  yet  ivithout  strength,  in  due  time 
Christ  died  for  the  ■ungodly.     This  and  the  following  verses 
to  the  11th,  contain  an  illustration  of  the  freeness  and  greatness 
of  the  love  of  God,  designed  to  prove  the  certainty  of  the  sal- 
vation of  believers.     The /or  either  connects  this  verse  with  the 
close  of  the  5th,  as  introducing  the  illustration  of  the  love  there 
spoken  of;  or  the  logical  connexion  is  with  the  declaration  of  the 
2d,  "we  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God;"  and  of  the  5th, 
"hope  maketh  not  ashamed."     This  latter,  from  the  context  of 
the  passage,  seems  the  more  natural.      When  we  were  ivithont 
strength  or  lueak.     The  word  thus  translated  may  mean  des- 
titute of  resources  or  miserable;  see  Prov.  22:  22.  31:  5,  9, 
where  the  Greek  word  used  by  Paul,  is  used  in  this  sense  by 
the  LXX.     Or  it  may  mean  morally  weak,  i.  e.  ivicked.     In 
favour  of  this  latter  interpretation  is  the  context.     The  tvealc 
are  the  ungodly  of  this  verse,  and  the  sinners  of  verse  8.     It 
is  probable  both  ideas  were  in  the  apostle's  mind,  and  that  he 
intended  to  express,  b}^  the  word,  the  weakness  and  misery 
consequent  on  sin,  or  our  helplessness  as  sinners.    In  due  time,* 
i.  e.  at  the  appointed  and  appropriate  time;  sec  Job  5:  26.  Is.  60: 
22.  Mark  1:15.  Gal.  4:  4.    Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.    Tiie 
preposition    rendered  for,   in    such    connexions,  signifies  not 


*  Calvin  connpcts  this  clause  with  the  preecdiiii;^,  aiul  translates  thus:  Quuin  nd- 
huc  essemus  iniiruii  sccumlum  ratioaem  tcniporis. 


ROMANS  5:  1—11.  167 

merely  for  the  henejit  of,  but  in  the  place  of  This  appears 
to  be  its  meaning  in  verse  1,  which  fixes  its  meaning  here; 
compare  Matt.  20:  28,  "To  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  (dvTi) 
many,"  with  1  Tim.  2:  6,  "Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
(Cts^)  all;"  see  Bretschneider's  Lexicon.  Christ  died  not  merely 
for  us,  but  in  our  place;  his  suffering  being  substituted  for 
ours.  This  gift  of  the  Son  of  God  to  die  for  the  ungodly,  is 
the  highest  conceivable  proof  of  his  love. 

(7)  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  vian  ivill  one  die,  yet 
peradventure  for  a  good  man  some  ivould  even  dare  to  die. 
The  greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love  of  God  is  illustrated  in 
this  and  the  following  verse,  by  making  still  more  prominent 
the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  '  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected 
that  any  one  would  die,  in  the  place  of  a  merely  righteous  man, 
though  for  a  good  man,  this  self-denial  might  possibly  be  ex- 
ercised. But  we,  so  far  from  being  good,  were  not  even  right- 
eous; we  were  sinners,  ungodly  and  enemies.'  The  diiference 
between  the  words  righteous  and  good,  as  here  used,  is  that, 
which  in  common  usage,  is  made  between  Jw5^  and  kind.  The 
former  is  applied  to  a  man  who  does  all  that  the  law  or  justice 
can  demand  of  him,  the  latter  to  him  who  is  governed  by  love. 
The  just  man  commands  respect;  the  good  man  calls  forth 
afiection.  Respect  being  a  cold  and  feeble  principle,  compared 
to  love,  the  sacrifices  to  which  it  leads  are  comparatively 
slight* 

As  the  word  righteous  is  so  frequently  used  in  scripture  as 
an  epithet  of  general  excellence,  the  righteous  meaning  the 
good,  the  godly,  many  understand  this  passage  thus:  'Hardly 
for  a  good  man  would  one  die,  though  perhaps  for  such  a  man, 
one  might  possibly  be  willing  to  die,  but  God  commendeth  his 
love,  &c.'t  But  though  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  right- 
eous when  opposed  to  wicked,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  its 
meaning  when  contrasted  with  good.  The  antithesis  requires 
a  restriction  of  its  meaning  here;  see  Matt.  20:  15,  "Is  thine 
eye  evil,  because  I  am  good  ?"   1  Peter  2: 18,  "  Not  only  to  the 

*  Si  vir  bonus  is  est,  qui  prodest  quibus  potest,  nocet  nemini,  rccte  justum 
virum,  bonum  non  facile  reperiemus. — Cicero  de  Ofliciis,  Lib.  III.  C.  15. 

-j-  Rarissimum  sane  inter  homines  exemplum  exstat,  ut  pro  justo  niori  quis 
sustineat ;  quanquam  accidere  possit.  Verum  ut  id  demus,  pro  iinpio  tamcn  mori 
qui  velit,  nemo  hominum  reperietur. — Calvi:^. 


168  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  forward."  Instead  oi righteous, 
the  Syriac  version  reads  unrighteous.  *For  an  unrighteous 
man,  one  would  scarcely  die,  &c.'  But  this  reading  has  no 
authority  and  greatly  mars  the  sense. 

(8)  But  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that, 
while  ive  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.  'Commendeth,' 
i.  e.  renders  conspicuous;  see  3:  5.  What  renders  the  love  of 
God  so  peculiarly  conspicuous  is  his  sending  his  Son  to  die,  not 
for  the  good,  nor  even  for  the  righteous,  but  for  sinners,  for 
those  who  were  deserving  of  wrath  instead  of  love.  The  word 
sinners  expresses  the  idea  of  moral  turpitude  and  consequent 
exposure  to  the  divine  displeasure.  It  was  for,  or  i7i  the  place 
of  those  who  were  at  once  corrupt,  and  the  enemies  of  God,  that 
Christ  died. 

(9)  Much  more  then,  heing  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we 
shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him.     This  and  the  fol- 
lowing verse  draw  the  obvious  inference  from  the  freeness  and 
greatness  of  the  love  of  God,  as  just  exhibited,  that  believers 
shall  be  ultimately  saved.     It  is  an  argument  a  fortiori.     If 
the  greater  benefit  has  been  bestowed,  the  less  will  not  be  with- 
held.    If  Christ  has  died  for  his  enemies,  he  will  surely  save 
his  friends.     Being  Just  if  cd.     To  be  justified  is  more  than  to 
be  pardoned;  it  includes  the  idea  of  reconciliation  or  restora- 
tion to  the  favour  of  God  and  the  participation  of  the  conse- 
quent blessings.     This  idea  is  prominently  presented  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse.    We  are  justified  by  his  blood.    This  expression, 
as  remarked  above  (ch.  4:  3),  exhibits  the  true  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance with  God.     It  is  not  our  works,  nor  our  faith,  nor  our 
new  obedience,  nor  the  work  of  Christ  in  us,  but  what  he  has 
done  for  us;  ch.  3:  25.  Eph.  2:  13.  Heb.  9:  12.    Having  by  the 
death  of  Christ  been  brought  into  the  relation  of  peace  with 
God,  being  now  regarded  for  his  sake  as  righteous,  we  shall  be 
saved  from  wrath  through  him,.     He  will  not  leave  his  work 
unfinished;  whom  he  justifies,  them  he   also   glorifies.     The 
word  wrath,  of  course,  means  the  eflfects  of  wrath  or  punish- 
ment, those  sufferings  with  which  the  divine  displeasure  visits 
sin;  Matt.  3:  7.  1  Thess.  1:  10.  Rom.  1:  18.     Not  only  is  our 
justification  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  but  our  salvation  is  through 
him.     Salvation,  in  a  general  sense,  includes  justification,  but 
when  distinguished  from  it,  as  in  this  case,  it  means  the  con- 


ROMANS  5:  1—11.  169 

summation  of  that  work  of  which  justification  is  the  com- 
mencement. It  is  a  preservation  from  all  the  causes  of  destruc- 
tion; a  deliverance  from  the  evils  which  surround  us  here,  or 
threaten  us  hereafter;  and  an  introduction  into  the  blessedness 
of  heaven.  Christ  thus  saves  us  by  his  Providence  and  Spirit, 
and  by  his  constant  intercession,  ch.  8:  34.  Heb.  4:  14,  15.  7: 
25.  Jude  V.  24.  1  John  2:  1. 

(10)  For  if  when  ive  were  yet  eneinies,  we  were  reconciled 
unto  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  &c.  This  verse  contains 
nearly  the  same  idea  as  v.  9,  presented  in  a  different  form.  The 
word  enemies  is  applied  to  men  not  only  as  descriptive  of  their 
moral  character,  but  also  of  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to 
God,  as  the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  There  is  not  only  a 
wicked  opposition  of  the  sinner  to  God,  but  a  holy  opposition  of 
God  to  the  sinner.  The  preceding  verse  presents  the  former  of 
these  id^as,  and  this  verse  the  latter  most  prominently.  There  it 
is  said,  though  sinners,  we  are  justified;  and  here,  though  ene- 
mies,  we  are  reconciled.  And  this  is  the  principal  difference 
between  the  two  verses.  To  be  reconciled  to  God,  in  such 
connexions,  does  not  mean  to  have  our  enmity  to  God  removed, 
but  his  enmity  to  us  taken  out  of  the  way,  to  have  him  ren- 
dered propitious,  or  his  righteous  justice  satisfied.  This  is  evi- 
dent, 1.  Because  the  reconciliation  is  ascribed  to  the  death  of 
Christ  or  his  blood,  v.  9.  But,  according  to  the  constant  repre- 
sentations of  scripture,  the  death  of  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  to 
satisfy  divine  justice,  or  to  propitiate  the  favour  of  God,  and 
not  immediately  a  means  of  sanctification.  The  former  is  its 
direct  object:  the  latter  an  incidental  result.  This  is  the  very 
idea  of  a  sacrifice.  2.  The  object  of  the  verse  is  to  present  us 
as  enemies  or  the  objects  of  God's  displeasure.  '  If  while  we 
were  the  objects  of  the  divine  displeasure,'  says  the  apostle, 
'  that  displeasure  has  been  removed,  or  God  propitiated  by  the 
death  of  his  Son,  how  much  more  shall  we  be  saved,'  &c.  That 
is,  if  God  has  been  reconciled  to  us,  he  will  save  us.  3.  This 
is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,*  2  Cor.  5:  18,  19.    See  also 

*  AiaXXarfrfw,  the  word  used  in  Matt.  5 :  24,  is  employed  in  the  same  sense  as 
xaraXkcudSu,  the  word  used  here.  The  former  Passow  defines,  Die  Gesinnung 
eines  andern  aus  Feindschaft  in  Freundschaft  verwandeln,  ihn  mit  einem  andem 
aussbhnen ;  '  To  change  the  feehngs  of  another  from  enmity  to  friendship,  to  recon- 
cile him  to  another.'     And,  in  the  middle  voice,  Sich  sclbst  mit  einem  andern  ver- 

22 


170  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

Matt.  5:  24,  "  First  go  and  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,"  i.  e. 
go  and  appease  his  anger,  or  remove  the  ground  of  his  displea- 
sure; compare  Heb.  2:  17,  "He  is  a  priest  to  make  recon- 
ciliation (ejs  to  iXarfxstfSai)  for  the  sins  of  the  people."  It  is  the 
appropriate  business  of  a  priest  to  propitiate  God,  and  not  to 
reform  men.  See  also  1  Sam.  29:  4,  "  Wherewith  should  he  re- 
concile himself  (SiaKKayrjdSTai)  to  his  master  ?  should  it  not  be 
with  the  heads  of  these  men?"  Eph.  2:  16,  "  That  he  might  re- 
concile {d-TfoxaTaXka^ri)  both  unto  God  by  the  cross,"  not  remove 
their  enmity  to  God,  but  secure  for  them  his  favour  and  access 
to  the  Father,  v.  18.  4.  The  context  obviously  requires  this 
sense  here.  "  Being  reconciled  by  the  death  of  his  Son,"  evi- 
dently corresponds  to  the  phrase  "  Being  justified  by  his  blood;" 
the  latter  cannot  mean  that  our  feelings  towards  God  are 
changed,  but  is  admitted  to  express  the  idea  that  we  are  for- 
given and  restored  to  the  divine  favour.  Such,  therefore,  must 
be  the  meaning  of  the  former.  Besides,  it  is  the  object  of  the 
apostle  to  illustrate  the  greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love  of 
God  from  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  While  sinners,  we 
are  justified;  while  enemies,  we  are  reconciled.  To  make  the 
passage  mean,  that  when  enemies,  we  laid  aside  our  enmity  and 
became  the  friends  of  God,  would  be  to  make  it  contradict  the 
very  assertion  and  design  of  the  apostle. 

PVe  shall  be  saved  by  his  life.  This  rather  unusual  mode 
of  expression  was  doubtless  adopted  for  the  sake  of  its  corres- 
pondence to  the  words  by  his  death  in  the  preceding  clause; 
and  is  a  striking  example  of  Paul's  fondness  for  such  antitheti- 
cal constructions;  see  ch.  4:  25.  Gal.  3:  3.  2  Cor.  3:  6.  The 
meaning  is  obvious.  '  If  while  we  Avere  enemies,  we  were  re- 
stored to  the  favour  of  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son;  the  fact 
that  he  lives  will  certainly  secure  our  final  salvation.'  1.  His 
life  is  a  pledge  and  security  for  the  life  of  all  his  people;  see 
John  14:  19,  "Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also;"  Rom.  8:  11. 
1  Cor.  15:  23.  2.  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  "be- 
cause he  ever  lives  to  make  intercession  for  us;"  Heb.  7:  25,  &c. 
&c.     3.  At  his  resurrection  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  w^as 

sbhnen,  '  to  reconcile  oneself  to  another,'  i.  e.  to  change  his  feelings  towards  us 
from  enmity  to  fricndshij).  The  latter  word  he  defines  to  reconcile,  and  in  the 
middle,  sich  unter  einander  versohnen,  '  to  effect  a  nmtual  reconciliation.' — See 
Stohr's  Zweck  dcs  Todes  Jcsu,  sect.  4.    Giioiius  Do  Salisfactiono  Christi,  ch.  7. 


ROMANS  5:  1—11.  171 

committed  to  his  hands,  Matt.  28:  18;  and  this  power  he  exer- 
cises for  the  salvation  of  his  people;  Eph.  1:  22,  'He  is  head 
over  all  things  for  the  benefit  of  his  church;'  Rev.  1:  18.  Heb. 
2:  10.  1  Cor.  15:  25,  &c.  &c.;  see  also  the  passages  cited  on  the 
last  clause  of  v.  9.  There  is,  therefore,  most  abundant  ground 
for  confidence  for  the  final  blessedness  of  believers,  not  only  in 
the  amazing  love  of  God  by  which,  though  sinners  and  enemies, 
they  have  been  justified  and  reconciled  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
but  also  in  the  consideration  that  this  same  Saviour  that  died 
for  them  still  lives,  and  ever  lives  to  sanctify,  protect,  and  save 
them. 

(11)  Noi  only  so,  but  wc  also  joy  in  God,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  &c.  That  is,  '  Not  only  are  we  secure  of  future 
salvation,  but  we  now  rejoice  in  God  as  our  reconciled  Father 
and  portion.'  This  includes  all  other  good.  If  God  be  for  us, 
who  can  be  against  us?  If  we  have  the  infinite  fountain  of 
blessedness,  it  matters  little  what  streams  may  fail.  Through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Paul  never  forgets  to  acknowledge 
that  all  the  blessings  of  redemption  are  through  Jesus  Christ; 
not  only  reconciliation  and  salvation,  but  present  joyful  inter- 
course with  God,  Heb.  4:16. 

By  ivhom  ive  have  now  received  the  atonement,  or  recon- 
ciliation, as  the  Greek  word  here  used  is  always  elsewhere 
rendered,  Rom.  11:  15.  2  Cor.  5:  IS,  19,  and  in  which  sense 
our  translators  probably  used  the  word  atonement.  To  receive 
reconciliation  and  to  be  reconciled,  are,  of  course,  synonymous 
expressions.  This  clause,  therefore,  is  but  a  repetition  of  verse 
10,  'We  rejoice  in  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom,  i.  e. 
by  whose  death,  we  have  been  restored  to  the  divine  favour.' 
Paul  says  we  have  now  received  reconciliation;  because  recon- 
ciliation is  a  present  good,  and  pledge  of  future  blessedness. 
"  If  children,  then  heirs,"  Rom.  8:17. 

Doctrines. 
1.  Peace  with  God  is  the  result  of  that  system  of  religion 
alone,  which,  by  providing  at  once  for  the  satisfaction  of  divine 
justice  and  the  sanctification  of  the  human  heart,  is  suited  to 
the  character  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man.  All  history 
shows  tliat  no  system  other  than  the  gospel  has  ever  produced 
this  peace,  v.  I. 


172  ROMANS  5:  1—11. 

2.  All  the  peculiar  blessings  of  redemption  are  inseparably 
connected  and  grow  out  of  each  other.  Those  who  are  justi- 
fied have  peace  with  God,  access  to  his  presence,  joy  under  the 
most  adverse  circumstances,  assurance  of  God's  love,  and  cer- 
tainty of  final  salvation;  see  the  whole  section,  and  compare 
ch.  8:  30. 

3.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  intimate  access  to  the  human  soul, 
controlling  its  exercises,  exciting  its  emotions,  and  leading  it 
into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  v.  5. 

4.  The  assurance  of  hope  is  founded  on  the  consciousness  of 
pious  affections,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  is  a 
grace  to  which  believers  may  and  ought  to  attain,  vs.  4,  5. 

5.  The  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  to  be  attributed  not  to 
the  strength  of  their  love  to  God,  nor  to  any  thing  else  in 
themselves,  but  solely  to  the  free  and  infinite  love  of  God  in 
Christ  Jesus.  The  praise  is,  therefore,  no  more  due  to  them, 
than  commendation  to  a  helpless  infant,  for  its  mother's  sleepless 
care.    "  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child,  &c."  vs.  6 — 10. 

6.  Redemption  is  not  by  truth  or  moral  influence,  but  by 
blood,  vs.  9,  10. 

7.  The  primary  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  render 
God  propitious,  to  satisfy  his  justice;  and  not  to  influence  human 
conduct,  or  display  the  divine  character  for  the  sake  of  the 
moral  effect  of  that  exhibition.  Among  its  infinitely  diversified 
results,  all  of  which  were  designed,  some  of  the  most  important, 
no  doubt,  arc  the  sanctification  of  men,  the  display  of  the  divine 
perfections,  the  prevention  of  sin,  the  happiness  of  the  universe, 
&c.  &c.  But  the  object  of  a  sacrifice,  as  such,  is  to  propitiate, 
vs.  9,  10.  Heb.  2:  17. 

8.  All  we  have  or  hope  for,  we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ;  peace, 
communion  with  God,  joy,  hope,  eternal  life;  see  the  whole 
.•section,  and  the  whole  bible. 

Bemarks. 
1.  If  we  are  the  genuine  children  of  God,  we  have  peace  of 
conscience,  a  sense  of  God's  favour,  and  freedom  of  access  to 
his  throne.  We  endure  afflictions  with  patience.  Instead  of 
making  us  distrustful  of  our  heavenly  Father,  tlicy  afford  us  new 
proofs  of  his  love,  and  strengthen  our  hope  of  his  mercy.    And 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  173 

we  shall  have  also,  more  or  less  of  the  assurance  of  God's  love 
by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  1 — 5. 

2.  None  of  these  fruits  of  reconciliation  with  God  can  be 
obtained  until  the  spirit  of  self-righteousness  and  self-depen- 
dence is  removed.  They  are  secured  through  faith,  and  by  Christ 
Jesus,  and  not  by  our  own  works  or  merit,  v.  1,  &c. 

3.  The  hope  of  the  hypocrite  is  like  a  spider's  web;  the  hope 
of  the  believer  is  an  anchor  to  his  soul,  sure  and  steadfast,  v.  5. 

4.  Assurance  of  the  love  of  God  never  produces  self-com- 
placency or  pride;  but  always  humility,  self-abasement,  wonder, 
gratitude  and  praise.  The  believer  sees  that  the  mysterious 
fountain  of  this  love  is  in  the  divine  mind;  it  is  not  in  himself 
who  is  ungodly  and  a  sinner,  vs.  8 — 10. 

5.  As  the  love  of  God  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  the  love  of 
Christ  in  dying  for  us,  are  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the 
gospel,  no  one  can  be  a  true  Christian,  on  whom  these  truths 
do  not  exert  a  governing  influence,  vs.  9:  10;  compare  2  Cor. 
5:  14. 

6.  True  religion  is  joyful,  vs.  2,  11. 


CHAP.  5:  12—21. 

Analysis. 
1.  Scope  of  the  passage.  The  design  of  this  section  is  the 
illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  justification  of  sinners  on  the 
ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the 
condemnation  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  That  such  is  its 
design,  is  evident,  1.  From  the  context.  Paul  has  been  engaged 
from  the  beginning  of  the  epistle  in  inculcating  one  main  idea, 
viz.  that  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God  is  not 
in  himself,  but  the  merit  of  Christ.  And  in  the  preceding  verses 
he  had  said,  "  we  are  justified  by  his  blood,"  v.  9;  by  his  death 
we  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour,  v.  10;  and  through  him, 
i.  e.  by  one  man,  we  have  received  reconciliation,  that  is,  are 
pardoned  and  justified,  v.  11.  As  this  idea  of  men's  being  re- 
garded and  treated  not  according  to  their  own  merit,  but  the 
merit  of  another,  is  contrary  to  the  common  mode  of  thinking 
among  men,  and,  especially,  contrary  to  their  self-righteous 
efforts  to  obtain  the  divine  favour,  the  apostle  illustrates  and 


174  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

enforces  it  by  an  appeal  to  tlie  great  analogous  fact  in  the  history 
of  the  world.     2.  From  an  inspection  of  vs.  12,  18,  19,  which 
contain  the  whole  point  and  substance  of  the  comparison.     The 
verses  13 — 17  are  virtually  a  parenthesis;  and  verses  20,  21, 
contain  two  remarks,  merely  incidental  to  the  discussion.     The 
verses  12,  18,  19,  must,  therefore,  contain  the  main  idea  of  the 
passage.     In  the  12th,  only  one  side  of  the  comparison  is  stated; 
but  in  vs.  18,  19,  it  is  resumed  and  carried   out.     *  As  by  the 
offence  of  one  all  are  condemned,  so  by  the   righteousness  of 
one  all  are  justified.'     This,  almost  in  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
is  the  simple  meaning  of  vs.  IS,  19,  and  makes  the  point  of  the 
comparison   and  scope  of  the  passage  peculiarly  clear.     3.  The 
design  of  the  passage  must  be  that  on  which  all  its  parts  bear, 
the  point  towards  which  they  all  converge.     The  course  of  the 
argument,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  bears  so  uniformly  and 
lucidly  on  the  point  just  stated,  that  the  attempt  to  make  it 
bear  on  any  other,  involves  the  whole  passage  in  confusion.    All 
that  the  apostle  says,  tends  to  the  illustration  of  his  declaration, 
'  as  we  are  condemned  on  account  of  what  Adam  did,  we  are 
justified  on  account  of  what  Christ  did.'     The  illustration  of 
this  point,  therefore,  must  be  the  design  and  scope  of  the  whole. 
It  is  frequently  and  confidently  said  that  the  design  of  the 
passage  is  to  exalt  our  views  of  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ, 
by  showing  that  they  are  greater  than  the  evils  occasioned  by 
the  fall.*     But  this  appears  not  only  improbable,  but  impossible. 
1.  Because  the  supei^abounding  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel  is 
not  expressly  stated  until  the  20th  verse.     That  is,  not  until  the 
whole  discussion  is  ended;  and  it  is  introduced  there,  merely 
incidentally  as  involved  in  the  apostle's  answer  to  an  objection 
to  his  argument,  implied  in  the  question.  For  what  purpose  did 
the  law  enter?     Is  it  possible  that  the  main  design  of  a  passage 
should  be  disclosed  only  in  the  reply  to  an  incidental  objection  ? 
The  j)itii  and  point  of  the  discussion  would  be  just  what  they 


•  "The  main  flesi^7i  of  this  passage  is  indord  plain.  It  lies,  one  may  say,  on  the 
very  face  of  it.  It  is  this,  viz.  '  to  exalt  our  views  respecting  the  blessings  which 
Christ  procured  for  us,  by  a  comparison  of  them  with  the  evil  consequences  which 
ensued  upon  the  fall  of  our  first  ancestor,  and  by  showing  that  the  blessings  in 
question  not  only  extend  to  the  removal  of  these  evils,  but  even  far  beyond  this;  so 
that  the  grace  of  the  gospel  has  not  only  abounded,  but  superabounded.'  " — Prof. 
Stuaht's  Romans,  p.  200.     So  also  Mr.  Barnes. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  175 

are  now,  had  no  such  objection  been  suggested  or  answered; 
yet,  if  this  view  of  the  subject  is  correct,  had  the  objection  not 
been  presented,  the  main  design  of  the  passage  would  have  been 
unexpressed  and  undiscoverable.  2.  The  idea  of  the  superi- 
ority of  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ,  to  the  evils  occasioned 
by  Adam,  although  first  expressly  stated  in  v.  20,  is  alluded  to 
and  implied  in  vs.  16,  17.  But  these  verses,  it  is  admitted,  belong 
to  a  parenthesis.  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  vs.  13, 14,  are 
designed  to  confirm  the  statement  of  v.  12,  and  that  vs.  15,  16, 
17,  are  subordinate  to  the  last  clause  of  v.  14,  and  contain  an 
illustration  of  its  meaning.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only  admitted, 
but  frequently  and  freely  asserted  that  vs.  12,  18,  19,  contain 
the  point  and  substance  of  the  whole  passage;  vs.  13 — 17,  being 
a  parenthesis.  Yet,  in  these  verses,  the  superabounding  of  the 
grace  of  Christ  is  not  even  hinted.  Can  it  be  that  the  main 
design  of  a  passage  should  be  contained  in  a  parenthesis,  and 
not  in  the  passage  itself  ?  The  very  nature  of  a  parenthesis  is, 
that  it  contains  something  which  may  be  left  out  of  a  passage, 
and  leave  the  sense  entire.  But  can  the  main  design  and  scope 
of  an  author  be  left  out,  and  leave  his  meaning  complete?  It 
is,  therefore,  impossible,  that  an  idea  contained  only  in  a  paren- 
thesis, should  be  the  main  design  of  the  passage.  The  idea  is, 
in  itself,  true  and  important,  but  the  mistake  consists  in  exalting 
a  corollary  into  the  scope  and  object  of  the  whole  discussion. 
The  confusion  and  mistake  in  the  exposition  of  a  passage,  con- 
sequent on  an  entire  misapprehension  of  its  design,  may  be 
readily  imagined. 

2.  The  connexion.  The  design  of  the  passage  being  the 
illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  previously  established;  the  connexion  is  natural 
and  obvious.  'Wherefore  as  by  one  man  we  have  been 
brought  under  condemnation,  so  by  one  man  we  are  brought 
into  a  state  of  justification  and  life.'  The  ivherefore  (^i« 
toCto)  is  consequently  to  be  taken  as  illative,  or  marking  an 
inference  from  the  whole  of  the  previous  part  of  the  epistle, 
and  especially  from  the  preceding  verses.  '  Wherefore  we  are 
justified  by  the  righteousness  of  one  man;  even  as  Ave  were 
brought  into  condemnation  by  the  sin  of  one  man.'  It  would 
seem  that  only  a  misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the  passage, 
or  an  unwillintiincss  to  admit  it,  could  have  led  to  the  numerous 


176  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

forced  and  «nauthorized  explanations  of  these  words.  Some 
render  them  moreover;  others  in  respect  to  this*  &c.  &c. 

3.  The  course  of  the  argument .  As  the  point  to  be  illus- 
trated is  the  jiustification  of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  and  the  source  of  illustration  is  the  fall  of  all 
men  in  Adam,  the  passage  begins  with  a  statement  of  this  latter 
truth.  '  As  on  account  of  one  man,  death  has  passed  on  all  men; 
so  on  account  of  one,  &c.'  v.  12. 

Before,  however,  carrying  out  the  comparison,  the  apostle 
stops  to  establish  his  position,  that  all  men  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam.  His  proof  is  this.  The 
infliction  of  a  penalty  implies  the  transgression  of  a  law  ;  since 
sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law,  v.  13. 

All  mankind  are  subject  to  death  or  penal  evils;  therefore 
all  men  are  regarded  as  transgressors  of  a  law,  v.  1 3. 

This  law  or  covenant,  which  brings  death  on  all  men,  is  not 
the  law  of  Moses,  because  multitudes  died  before  that  was  given, 
V.  14. 

Nor  is  it  the  law  of  nature  written  upon  the  heart,  since  mul- 
titudes die  who  have  never  violated  even  that  law,  v.  14. 

Therefore,  as  neither  of  these  laws  is  sufficiently  extensive 
to  embrace  all  the  subjects  of  the  penalty,  we  must  conclude 
that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  Adam;  that  is,  it  is 
for  the  offence  of  one  that  many  die,  vs.  13,  14. 

Adam  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  As  to  this  important 
point,  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  the  fall  and  redemp- 
tion. We  are  condemned  in  Adam,  and  we  are  justified  in 
Christ.  But  the  cases  are  not  completely  parallel.  In  the  first 
place,  the  former  dispensation  is  much  more  mysterious  than 
the  latter;  for  if  by  the  offisnce  of  one  many  die,  much  more 
by  the  righteousness  of  one  shall  many  live,  v.  15. 

In  the  second  place,  the  benefits  of  the  one  dispensation  far 
■exceed  the  evils  of  the  other.  For  the  condemnation  was  for 
one  offence;  the  justification  is  from  many.  Christ  saves  us 
from  much  more  than  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  v.  16. 

In  the  third  place,  Christ  not  only  saves  us  from  death,  that 
is,  not  only  frees  us  from  the  evils  consequent  on  our  own  and 
Adam's  sin,  but  introduces  us  into  a  state  of  positive  and  eter- 

*  See  Prof.  Stuart  ajid  Mr.  Barnes. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  177 

nal  blessedness,  v.  17.  Or  this  verse  may  be  considered  as  an 
amplification  of  the  sentiment  of  v.  15. 

Having  thus  limited  and  illustrated  the  analogy  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  the  apostle  resumes  and  carries  the  compari- 
son fully  out.  '  Therefore,  as  on  account  of  one  man  all  men 
are  condemned;  so  on  account  of  one  all  are  justified,  v.  18. 
For  as  through  the  disobedience  of  one  many  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners;  so  through  the  righteousness  of  one 
many  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,'  v.  19.  This  then 
is  the  sense  of  the  passage,  men  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of 
one  man,  and  justified  for  the  righteousness  of  another. 

If  men  are  thus  justified  by  the  obedience  of  Christ,  for 
what  purpose  is  the  law  ?  It  entered  that  sin  might  abound,  i.  e. 
that  men  might  see  how  much  it  abounded;  since  by  the  law  is 
the  knowledge  of  sin.  The  law  has  its  use,  although  men  are 
not  justified  by  their  own  obedience  to  it,  v.  20. 

As  the  law  discloses,  and  even  aggravates  the  dreadful  tri- 
umphs of  sin  reigning,  in  union  with  death,  over  the  human 
family,  the  gospel  displays  the  far  more  effectual  and  extensive 
triumphs  of  grace  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  v.  21. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  it  consists  of  five 
parts. 

The  first,  contained  in  v.  12,  presents  the  first  member  of  the 
comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam. 

The  second  contains  the  proof  of  the  position  assumed  in  the 
12th  verse,  and  embraces  vs.  13,  14,  which  are  therefore  sub- 
ordinate to  v.  12.     Jidarriy  therefore^  is  a  type  of  Christ. 

The  third,  embracing  vs.  15,  16,  17,  is  a  commentary  on  this 
declaration,  by  which  it  is  at  once  illustrated  and  limited. 

The  fourth,  in  vs.  18,  19,  resumes  and  carries  out  the  com- 
parison commenced  in  v.  12. 

The  fifth  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  and  contains  a 
statement  of  the  design  and  effect  of  the  law,  and  of  the  results 
of  the  gospel  suggested  by  the  preceding  comparison,  vs.  20,  21. 

Commentary. 

(12)  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin,  &c.  The  force  of  wherefore  has  already 
been  pointed  out,  when  speaking  of  the  connexion  of  this  pas- 
sage with  the  preceding.     '  It  follows  from  what  had  been  said 

23 


178  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

of  the  method  of  justification,  that  as  by  one  man,  &c.'  It  in- 
dicates the  point  towards  which  the  whole  discussion,  from  the 
commencement  ofthe  epistle,  tends,  and  the  grand  conclusion 
from  all  the  apostle's  reasoning,  ^s  by  one  man.  The  word 
(IS  obviously  indicates  a  comparison  between  the  case  of  Adam 
and  something  else.  Since,  however,  the  other  part  of  the 
comparison  is  not  immediately  stated,  various  explanations  of 
this  verse  have  been  proposed.  It  is,  however,  so  obvious,  that 
the  comparison  here  commenced  is  resumed  and  stated  in  full 
in  vs.  18,  19,  that  the  great  body  of  commentators,  with  whom 
Prof.  Stuart  also  agrees,  consider  the  verses  13 — 17  as  a  paren- 
thesis, designed  for  the  confirmation  and  illustration  of  the 
statement  in  v.  12.  Thus,  too,  the  passage  is  pointed  in  our 
common  English  version. 

By  one  tnan  sin  entered  into  the  ivorlcl,  i.  e.  one  man  was 
the  cause  of  all  men's  becoming  sinners.  To  make  these  words 
mean  nothing  more  than  that  sin  commenced  with  Adam,  th-at 
he  was  the  first  sinner,  is  obviously  inconsistent  with  the  force  of 
the  words  by  one  man,  and  with  the  whole  context  and  design  of 
the  passage.  See  the  expressions  "  through  the  offence  of  one," 
V.  15;  "  the  judgment  was  by  one,"  v.  16;  "by  one  man's  of- 
fence," v.  17;  "by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came,"  V.  IS;  "by 
one  man's  disobedience,"  v.  19.  These  expressions  so  clearly 
parallel  with  the  declaration  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,"  make  it  too  plain  to  admit  of  doubt,  that  the  clause  be- 
fore us  expresses  the  idea  that  Adam  was  the  cause  of  all  men's 
becoming  sinners,  and  not  merely  that  sin  began  with  him, 
or  that  he  was  the  first  sinner.  This  is  rendered,  if  possible, 
still  more  obvious  by  the  constant  contrast  or  comparison, 
through  the  whole  passage,  of  Adam  and  Christ;  by  one  man 
came  sin;  by  one  man  came  righteousness;  by  the  offence  of 
one  came  death;  by  the  righteousness  of  the  other  came  life;  &c. 
&c.  That  Adam  was  the  cause  of  sin  and  death,  is,  therefore, 
as  clearly  expressed,  as  that  Christ  is  the  cause  of  righteousness 
and  life;  and  is  expressed,  not  merely  hinted  at,  in  this  verse.* 

•  The  words  by  one  mah  have  most  xuiaccountably  been  left  outof  view  by  Prof. 
Stuart  in  his  commentary  on  this  verse.  He  makes  no  special  remark  about  thcni, 
except  to  show  why  Ailanj  and  not  Eve  was  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  p.  205.  In 
discussing  the  question  whether  this  verse  expresses  any  causal  connexion  between 
tlie  sin  of  Adam  and  the  sin  and  condemnation  of  the  race,  they  are  not  at  all  re- 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  179 

But  admitting  that  the  words  hy  one  man  si?i  entered  into 
ttie  world,  express  clearly  the  idea  that  one  man  was  the  cause 
of  all  men's  becoming  sinners,  they  may  still  be  variously  ex- 
plained. 1,  Many,  not  only  of  the  older,  but  also  of  the  mo- 
dern commentators  and  theologians,  understand  sin  here  to 
mean  corruption;  so  Storr,*  Flatt,  Bretschneider,  &c.  This 
clause  then  teaches  that  Adam  was  the  cause  of  the  corruption 
of  our  nature,  which  all  men  have  derived  from  him.  2.  Others, 
taking  the  word  sm  in  its  ordinary  signification,  understand  the 
passage  as  teaching  that  Adam  was  the  cause  or  occasion  of  all 
men's  being  led  to  commit  personal  or  actual  sin,  either  from 
the  force  of  example  or  circumstances,  or  divine  constitution. 


ferredto.  On  p.  213,  he  says,  "It  does  not  follow,  because  v.  19  asserts  an  influ- 
ence of  Adam  upon  the  sinfulness  of  men,  that  the  same  sentiment  must  therefore 
be  affirmed  in  V.  12;  certainly  not  that  it  should  be  directly  asserted  in  the  same 
manner."  He  "readily  concedes"  that  there  is  an  indirect  intimation  of  such  a 
connexion  in  this  verse  ;  but  he  finds  it  only  in  the  expressions  "  sin  entered  into 
the  -world,  and  so  passed,"  or,  as  he  expresses  himself  on  p.  215,  the  sentiment  "  is 
probably  hinted  at,  as  I  have  already  shown,  by  other  words  (other  than  xai  ouTWg) 
in  the  same  verse,  viz.  EiVijXSs  and  (5i^X5£."  He  therefore,  in  giving  the  meaning 
of  this  verse,  repeatedly  leaves  its  main  idea  out  of  his  statement.  "  As  Adam  sin- 
ned and  brought  death  upon  himself,  so  death  in  all  other  cases,  in  like  manner,  is 
the  inseparable  attendant  upon  sin ;  and  death  is  universal,  because  sin  is  so,"  p.  215. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  he  had  before  stated,  and  frequently  repeats,  that 
V.  12  contains  the  first  member  or  protasis  of  a  comparison,  of  which  the  second, 
or  apodosis,  is  found  in  vs.  18,  19.  Thus,  on  p.  204,  "ndifsp,  as,  of  course  intro- 
duces a  comparison;  ojS'KSP  standing  before  the  protasis,  which  appears  to  extend 
through  the  verse.  But  where  is  the  apodonisP"  After  giving  several  answers  to 
this  question,  he  adds,  "I  find  a  full  apodosis  only  in  vs.  18,  19,  where  the  senti- 
ment of  V.  12  is  virtually  resumed  and  repeated,  and  where  the  apodosis  regularly 
follows  after  a  ouTij  xai."  And  accordingly,  when  he  comes  to  those  verses,  he 
says,  "  '  Matters  being  as  I  have  already  declared,  it  follows  or  results  from  them, 
that  the  comparison  commenced  in  v.  12,  will  hold,  viz.  that  as  all  have  been  intro- 
duced to  sin  and  death  by  Adam,  so  righteousness  and  life  are  provided  for  all  by 
Christ.'  "  The  12th  verse,  then,  does  teach  that  Adam  was  the  cause  of  all  men's 
becoming  sinners,  as  Christ  is  the  cause  of  all  becoming  righteous.  But  how  can 
this  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  that  the  gith  and  purpose  of  v.  12,  is  "  As 
Adam  sinned  and  brought  death  upon  himself,  so  death  is  in  all  other  cases,  in  like 
manner,  the  inseparable  attendant  upon  sin ;  and  death  is  universal,  because  sin  is 
so  1"  p.  215. 

*  "  'H  aiiaPTia  steht  hier  metonymisch  f  iir  die  Ursache  der  Siinde,  oder  die 
Quelle  der  einzelnen  Versundigungen."  Brief  an  die  Hebr.  641.  Flatt,  on  this 
verse,  explains  it,  "  Das  SUndigen  oder  sitthche  Verdorbenheit,"  "  Der  Hang  zum 
Bcisen."     "  Die  fehlerhafte  Disposition  des  Menschen." 


180  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

3.  Others  understand  the  declaration  that  '  through  Adam  all 
men  became  sinners,'  to  mean  that  on  his  account  all  men  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners. 

It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  this  expression  must  be  under- 
stood in  the  same  way  with  the  obviously  parallel  phrase,  "  by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,"  in  v.  19, 
and  the  corresponding  ones  in  the  other  portions  of  the  passage. 
It  must  also  have  the  same  meaning  as  the  words  "  for  all 
have  sinned"  at  the  close  of  this  verse;  and  "sin  was  in  the 
world,"  i.  e.  men  were  sinners,  in  v.  13.  Which  of  the  three 
interpretations  just  stated  is  to  be  preferred,  will,  therefore,  be 
most  properly  considered  when  we  come  to  the  last  clause  of 
the  verse.  It  is  probable  that  Paul  meant  to  express,  in  the 
first  instance,  the  general  idea  that  all  men  fell  in  Adam;  which 
includes  the  idea  both  of  the  loss  of  holiness,  and  of  subjection 
to  the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  It  will  appear,  however,  in 
the  sequel,  that  the  latter  is  altogether  the  more  prominent  idea; 
and,  consequently,  that  the  third  interpretation  expresses  most 
accurately  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage. 

And  death  by  sin,  i.  e.  sin  was  the  cause  of  death.  The 
death  here  spoken  of  is  not  mere  natural  death,  but  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  or  the  evils  threatened  as  the  punishment  of  sin. 
This  is  evident,  1.  From  the  consideration  that  it  is  said  to  be 
the  consequence  of  sin.  It  must,  therefore,  mean  that  death, 
which  the  scriptures  elsewhere  speak  of,  as  the  consequence 
and  punishment  of  transgression.  2.  Because  this  is  the  com- 
mon and  favourite  term  with  the  sacred  w^riters,  from  first  to 
last,  for  the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  Gen.  2:  17,  "In  the 
day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  i.  e.  thou  shalt 
become  subject  to  the  punishment  due  to  sin;  Ezek.  IS:  4, 
"The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die;"  Rom.  6:  23,  "  The  wages 
of  sin  is  death;"  ch.  8:  13,  "If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall 
die."  Such  passages  are  altogether  too  numerous  to  be  quoted, 
or  even  referred  to;  see,  as  further  examples,  Rom.  1:  32.  7:  5. 
James  1:15.  Rev.  20:  14,  &c.  &c.  3.  From  the  constant  opposi- 
tion'between  the  terms  life  and  death  throughout  the  scriptures; 
the  former  standing  for  the  rewards  of  the  righteous,  the  latter  for 
the  punishment  of  tlie  wicked.  Thus,  in  Gen.  2:17,  life  was  pro- 
mised to  our  first  parents  as  the  reward  of  obedience;  and  death 
threatened  a«  the  punishment  of  disobedience.    See  Deut.  30:  15, 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  181 

"I  have  set  before  thee  life  and  death;"  Jer.  21:  8.  Prov.  11  r 
19.  Ps.  36:  9.  Matt.  25:  46.  John  3:  15.  2  Cor.  2:16,  &c.  &c. 
4.  From  the  opposition  in  this  passage  between  the  life  which 
is  by  Christ,  and  the  death  which  is  by  Adam,  \s.  15,  17,  21, 
'  Sin  reigns  unto  death,  grace  reigns  through  righteousness  unto 
eternal  life.'  As,  however,  natural  death  is  a  part,  and  the 
most  obvious  part,  of  the  penal  evils  of  sin,  it  no  doubt  was 
prominent  in  th«  apostle's  mind,  as  appears  from  vs.  13,  14. 
Death,  therefore,  in  this  passage,  means  the  evil,  and  any  evil 
which  is  inflicted  in  punishment  of  sin.  The  amount  of  this 
evil  is  different,  no  doubt,  in  every  different  case  of  transgres- 
sion. 

^?id  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  that  is,  all  men  became 
exposed  to  penal  evils,  or  the  penalty  due  to  sin.  The  force  of 
the  words  rendered  and  so,  has  been  much  disputed.  The 
question  is,  does  the  apostle  mean  to  say  that '  Adam  was  the 
cause  of  men's  becoming  sinners  and  liable  to  death,  and  so  (i.  e. 
hence  it  is)  that  death  passed  on  all,  since  all  sinned  ?'  Or  does 
he  mean,  '  that  as  Adam  sinned  and  died,  so  also,  in  like  manner, 
all  men  die,  because  all  have  sinned  ?'  In  other  words,  do  these 
words  intimate  a  special  connexion  between  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  the  sin  and  condemnation  of  the  race;  or  do  they  teach 
merely  the  inseparable  connexion  between  sin  and  death  ? 
That  the  latter  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  appears 
sufficiently  plain  from  the  following  considerations.  1.  The 
very  force  and  position  of  the  words  are  unfavourable  to  this 
interpretation.  Paul  says  and  so  {xal  o'yrug),  and  not  so  also 
(ouTw  xal),  nor  in  like  manner  (wtfajTws).  That  is,  he  says  '  By 
one  man,  men  became  sinners,  and  exposed  to  death,  and  so 
death  has  passed  on  all  men,  &c.'  And  not,  '  As  Adam  sinned 
and  died,  so  also  all  men  die  because  all  have  sinned.'  Had 
he  meant  to  express  the  analogy  between  the  case  of  Adam,  and 
that  of  his  posterity,  such  would  obviously  have  been  his  mode 
of  expression.  Let  any  one  compare  the  construction  in  vs.  18, 
19.  "  *ds  (wg)  by  the  offence  of  one,  .50  also  (oDtu  xai)  by  the 
righteousness  of  one."  '"  */9s  (cIjC'^'S^)  by  the  disobedience  of  one, 
JO  also  {oxiTu  xa/)  by  the  obedience  of  one."  In  neither  case  is 
the  position  of  the  words  as  it  is  in  this  verse.  They  do  not, 
therefore,  answer  to  the  as,  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  as 
introducing  the  second  member  of  the  comparison;  see  1  Cor. 


182  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

11:  12,  ".^,?  the  man,  so  also  the  woman-/'  12:  12,  '■'■As  the 
body  is  one,  so  also  is  Christ;"'  15:  22,  ^'-  As  in  Adam  all  die, 
so  also  in  Christ,  &c."  This  interpretation,  therefore,  cannot 
be  reconciled  with  the  construction  of  the  sentence.  2.  It  fails 
to  present  the  main  idea  of  the  verse.  If  the  so,  in  the  middle 
of  the  verse,  answers  to  the  as  at  the  beginning  of  it,  then  this 
verse  does  not  contain  the  first  part  of  a  comparison  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  but  merely  a  comparison  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity.  '  As  the  one  sinned  and  died,  so  also  the  others.' 
But  it  is  admitted  by  Prof.  Stuart  and  others,  who  defend  this 
interpretation,  that  v.  12  does  contain  the  first  member  of  a 
comparison  between  Adam  and  Christ,  which  is  resumed  and 
repeated  in  full,  in  vs.  18,  19;  consequently  the  as  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  verse,  does  not  answer  to  the  so  in  the  middle 
of  it,  but  to  the  so  also  in  vs.  18,  19.*  3.  According  to  this 
interpretation,  the  words  by  one  man  are  completely  otiant ; 
they  are  overlooked  and  forgotten,  though  they  contain  the 
very  marrow  of  the  verse.  It  is  by  07ie  man  that  men  became 
sinners,  and  so,  in  this  way  it  was,  by  means  of  this  one  man, 
death  passed  upon  all  men.  These  words,  therefore,  do  express 
the  connexion  between  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  the  sin  and  con- 
demnation of  his  race.  So  Grotius,  Bengel,  Storr,  Flatt,  Tho- 
luck,  and  a  multitude  of  the  older  and  later  commentators  un- 
derstand the  words  in  question. 

For  that  all  have  sinned.  These  words  oliviously  assign  the 
reason  why  all  men  are  exposed  to  death.  Instead  of  rendering 
the  Greek  words  ^9'  Z  for  that,  the  Latin  version,  and  many  of 
the  older  commentators  and  theologians,  Arminians  as  well  as 
Calvinists,  translate  them  in  tvho?n.  'By  one  man  all  men 
became  sinners,  and  hence  death  passed  upon  all  men,  through 
that  one  7nan,  in  whom  all  sinned.'  Tiiis,  no  doubt,  is  the  true 
meaning  of  the  whole  verse.  But  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order 
to  defend  this  interpretation,  to  ado])t  the  rendering  in  whom, 
against  which  there  are  strong  jjhilological  objections;  especially 
the  remoteness  of  the  antecedent.     Our  common  version,  there- 


•  "  The  form  of  tlic  sentence  completoil  would  be  "Orf-rsp  x.  r.  X. — oCrw  xai  x.  r.  X. 
But  the  latter  member  is  here  wanting." — Pkof.  S-rrAiiT,  p.  204.  But  if  his  ex- 
position of  xai  ouTWc;,  in  v.  12,  is  correct,  the  latter  member  of  the  sentence  is  not 
wantinu;,  but  the  12th  verse  is  complete  in  itself. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  183 

fore,  is  to  be  preferred.     '  All  die  for  that,  or  because  that,  all 
have  sinned.' 

With  regard  to  these  important  words,  we  meet  with  the 
three  interpretations  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse. 
I.  All  men  have  personally  and  actually  sinned.  Then  the 
sentiment  of  the  verse  is  either,  as  just  stated  from  Prof.  Stuart, 
*  As  Adam  sinned  and  died,  so  in  like  manner  death  has  passed 
on  all  men,  because  all  have  sinned.'  According  to  this  view, 
the  connexion  of  Adam's  sin  with  the  sin  and  death  of  his 
posterity  is  not  stated,  though  it  may  be  intimated  by  the  pe- 
culiar form  of  the  expressions.  Or  the  meaning  is,  '  As  Adam 
was  the  cause  or  occasion  of  men  becoming  sinners,  so  death 
passed  on  all,  since  all  have,  in  consequence  of  his  obedience, 
been  led  into  sin.'  The  objections  to  this  interpretation  will  be 
presented  in  the  sequel,  in  the  form  of  arguments  in  favour  of 
another  view  of  the  passage.  II.  According  to  the  second 
interpretation,  the  words  mean  all  have  become  corriqit.  Then 
the  sense  of  the  verse  is,  '  As  by  Adam,  sin  (corruption  of 
nature)  was  introduced  into  the  world,  and  death  as  its  conse- 
quence, and  so  death  passed  on  all  men,  because  all  have  become 
corrupt;  even  so,  &c.'  The  principal  objections  to  this  inter- 
pretation are,  1.  It  assigns  a  very  unusual,  if  not  an  unexampled 
sense  to  the  words.  The  word  rendered  have  become  corrupt, 
not  occurring  elsewhere  with  this  signification.  2.  It  destroys 
the  analog)!-  between  Christ  and  Adam.  The  point  of  the  com- 
parison is  not,  '  As  Adam  was  the  source  of  corruption,  so  is 
Christ  of  holiness;'  but,  '  As  Adam  was  the  cause  of  our  con- 
demnation, so  is  Christ  of  our  justification.'  3.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  meaning  of  vs.  13,  14,  which  are  designed  to  prove 
that  the  ground  of  the  universality  of  death,  is  the  sin  or  offence 
of  Adam.  4.  It  would  require  us,  in  order  to  preserve  any 
consistency  in  the  passage,  to  put  an  interpretation  on  vs.  15, 
16,  17,  18,  19,  which  they  will  not  bear.  Although  the  senti- 
ment, therefore,  is  correct  and  scriptural,  that  we  derive  a 
corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  as  it  is  also  true  that  Christ  is  the 
author  of  holiness,  yet  these  are  not  the  truths  which  Paul  is 
here  immediately  desirous  of  presenting. 

III.  The  third  interpretation,  therefore,  according  to  which 
the  words  in  question  mean  all  men  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners,  is  to  be  preferred.     The  verse  then  contains  this 


184  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

idea,  '  As  by  one  man  all  men  became  sinners  and  exposed  to 
death,  and  thus  death  passed  on  all  men,  since  all  were  regarded 
as  sinners  on  his  account,'  even  so  by  one  man,  &c.  The 
grounds  of  this  interpretation  are  the  following.  1.  The 
word  translated  have  sinned  may,  in  strict  accordance  with 
usage,  be  rendered  have  become  guilty,  or  regarded  and, 
treated  as  sinners.  Gen.  44:  32,  is  in  Gr^ek,  "I  shall  have 
sinned"  ('/j|ut,a|T7]xw5  itfofji.ai),  which  expresses  the  same  idea  as  the 
English  version  of  the  passage;  "  I  shall  bear  the  blame  to  my 
father  for  ever,"  that  is, '  I  shall  always  be  regarded  as  a  sinner.' 
The  same  phrase  occurs,  43:  9,  "  Then  let  me  bear  the  blame,^' 
the  precise  idea  of  being  regarded  as  a  sinner;  1  Kings  1:  21, 
"  I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  sinners,"  i.  e.  regarded  and 
counted  as  such.  In  our  version,  therefore,  it  is  correctly  ren- 
dered, "  Shall  be  counted  offenders."  (In  Greek,  s(ro|aai  lyu  xai, 
X.  T.  X.  afjLa|Tc.jXoi.)  In  Job  9:  29,  "  If  I  be  wicked"  is  the  opposite 
idea  to  "  thou  will  not  hold  me  innocent,"  v.  28,  and  therefore 
means, 'If  I  be  condemned  or  regarded  as  wicked.'  Indeed 
there  is  no  usage  more  familiar  to  the  student  of  the  bible,  than 
one  nearly  identical  with  this.  "  He  shall  be  clean,"  "  he  shall 
be  unclean,"  "he  shall  be  just,"  "he  shall  be  wicked,"  are  ex- 
pressions constantly  occurring  in  the  sense  of  '  he  shall  be  so 
regarded  and  treated.'  See  Storr's  Ohservationes,  p.  14.  The 
interpretation,  therefore,  which  has  been  given  of  these  words, 
instead  of  being  forced  or  unusual,  is  agreeable  to  one  of  the 
most  common  and  familiar  usages  of  scripture  language.* 

2.  It  is  so  obvious  as  to  secure  almost  universal  assent,  that 
V.  12  contains  the  first  part  of  a  comparison  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  which  is  interrupted,  and  then  resumed  and  repeated 
in  vs.  18,  19.  It  will  be  seen  that  those  verses  teach  that 
'judgment  came  upon  all  men  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one 
man ;'  that '  on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  one  man,  all  were 
regarded  as  sinners.'  To  this  corresponds  the  plain  declaration  of 
V.  1 6, '  We  are  condemned  for  one  offence.'  If  then  these  verses 
express  the  same  idea  with  v.  12,  as  is  freely  admitted  by  Prof. 
Stuart  and  others,  we  are  forced  to  understand  verse  12  as  teach- 
ing, not  the  acknowledged  truth  that  men  are  actual  sinners, 

•  Even  Wahl,  in  his  Lexicon,  so  explains  them,  "  aju.a|Tavw, /)ecca/^' cwZ/aw 
sustineo,  Rom.  5:  12,  coil.  v.  19,  ubi  afia^Tu'Xos  xa'rs<j7a.hr]v.  Ita  LXX.  et  HWn 
Gen.  44:32." 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  185 

but  that  they  have  been  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  one 
man. 

3.  This  interpretation  is  demanded  by  the  connexion  of  this 
verse  with  those  immediately  following.  The  vs.  13,  14,  in- 
troduced hy  for,  are  confessedly  designed  to  prove  the  assertion 
of  V.  12.  If  that  assertion  is  'all  men  are  regarded  as  sinners 
on  account  of  Adam,'  the  meaning  and  pertinency  of  these 
verses  are  clear.  But  if  verse  12  asserts  merely  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  then  vs.  13,  14  must  be  regarded  as  proving  that 
men  were  sinners  before  the  time  of  Moses;  a  point  which  no 
one  denied,  and  no  one  doubted,  and  which  is  here  entirely 
foreign  to  the  apostle's  object.  The  vs.  13,  14,  present  insu- 
perable difficulties,  if  we  assign  any  other  meaning  than  that 
just  given  to  v.  12. 

4.  Whatv.  12  is  thus  made  to  assert,  and  vs.  13,  14  to  prove, 
is  in  vs.  15,  16,  17, 18,  19,  assumed  as  proved,  and  is  employed 
in  illustration  of  the  great  truth  to  be  established.  "  For  if 
through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,"  v.  15.  But  where 
is  it  said,  or  where  proved,  that  the  many  die  for  the  offence  of 
one,  if  not  in  v.  12  and  vs.  13,  14?  So  in  all  the  other  verses. 
This  idea,  therefore,  must  be  taught  in  v.  12,  if  any  consistency 
is  to  be  riiaintained  between  the  several  parts  of  the  apostle's 
argument. 

5.  This  interpretation  is  required  by  the  whole  scope  of  the 
passage  and  drift  of  the  argument.  The  scope  of  the  passage, 
as  shown  above,  is  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  justification  on 
the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the 
condemnation  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  analogy  is 
destroyed,  the  very  point  and  pith  of  the  comparison  fail,  if 
any  thing  in  us  be  assumed  as  the  ground  of  the  infliction  of  the 
penal  evils  of  which  the  apostle  is  here  speaking.  That  we 
have  corrupt  natures,  and  are  personally  sinners,  and  therefore 
liable  to  other  and  further  inflictions,  is  indeed  true,  but  nothing 
to  the  point.  In  like  manner  it  is  true  that  we  are  sanctified 
by  our  union  with  Christ,  and  thus  fitted  for  heaven,  but  these 
ideas  are  out  of  place  when  speaking  of  justification.  It  is  to 
illustrate  this  doctrine,  or  the  idea  of  imputed  righteousness, 
that  this  whole  passage  is  devoted ;  and,  therefore,  the  idea  of 
imputed  sin  must  be  contained  in  the  other  part  of  the  com- 

24 


186  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

parison,  unless  the  whole  be  a  failure.  Not  only  does  the  scope 
of  the  passage  demand  this  view,  but  it  is  only  thus  that  the 
argument  of  the  apostle  can  be  consistently  carried  through. 
We  die  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  v.  12;  this  is  true,  because 
on  no  other  ground  can  the  universality  of  death  be  accounted 
for,  vs.  13,  14.  But  if  we  all  die  on  Adam's  account,  how  much 
more  shall  we  live  on  account  of  Christ,  v.  15.  Adam  indeed 
brings  upon  us  the  evil  inflicted  for  the  first  great  violation  of 
the  covenant,  but  Christ  saves  us  from  all  our  numberless  sins, 
V.  16.  As  therefore,  for  the  offence  of  one,  we  are  condemned, 
so  for  the  righteousness  of  one  we  are  justified,  v.  18.  As  on 
account  of  the  disobedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  sinners,  so 
on  account  of  the  obedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  righteous, 
V.  19.  The  inconsistency  and  confusion  consequent  on  attempt- 
ing to  carry  either  of  the  other  interpretations  through,  must  be 
obvious  to  any  attentive  reader  of  such  attempts. 

6.  The  doctrine  which  the  verse  thus  explained  teaches,  is 
one  of  the  plainest  truths  of  all  the  scriptures  and  of  experience. 
Is  it  not  a  revealed  fact,  above  all  contradiction,  and  sustained 
by  the  whole  history  of  the  world,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  altered 
the  relation  in  which  our  race  stood  to  God  ?  Did  not  that  sin 
of  itself,  and  independently  of  any  thing  in  us,  or  done  by  us, 
bring  evil  on  the  world  ?  In  other  words,  did  we  not  fall  when 
Adam  fell  ?  If  these  questions  are  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
the  doctrine  contained  in  the  interpretation  of  v.  12,  given 
above,  is  admitted. 

7.  The  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  or,  that  on 
account  of  that  sin,  all  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners, 
was  a  common  Jewish  doctrine  at  the  time  of  the  apostle,  as 
well  as  at  a  latter  period.  He  employs  the  same  mode  of  ex- 
pression on  the  subject  which  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  use. 
They  could  not  have  failed,  therefore,  to  understand  him  as 
meaning  to  convey  by  these  expressions  the  ideas  usually  con- 
nected with  them.  And  such,  therefore,  if  the  apostle  wished 
to  be  understood,  must  have  been  his  intention;  see  the  Targum 
on  Ruth  4:  22,  "On  account  of  the  counsel  given  to  Eve  (and 
her  eating  the  fruit),  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  were  con- 
stituted guilty  of  death."  R.  Moses  of  Traua,  Beth  Elohim, 
fol.  105,  i.  e.  "  With  the  same  sin  with  which  Adam  sinned, 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  187 

sinned  the  whole  world."     Many  such  passages  may  he  seen  in 
Wetstein,  Schoettgen,  Tholuck  and  other  commentators.* 

8.  It  may  he  well  to  remark  that  this  interpretation,  so  far 
from  being  the  offspring  of  theological  prejudice,  or  fondness  for 
any  special  theory,  is  so  obviously  the  true  and  simple  meaning 
of  the  passage  required  by  the  context,  that  it  has  the  sanction 
of  theologians  of  every  grade  and  class  of  doctrine.  Calvinists, 
Arminians,  Lutherans,  Rationalists,  agree  in  its  support.  Thus 
Storr,  one  of  the  most  accurate  of  philological  interpreters,  ex- 
plains the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  the  manner  stated  above. 
"By  one  man  all  are  subject  to  death,  because  all  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners,  i.  e.  because  all  lie  under  the  sentence  of 
condemnation."  The  phrase  all  have  sinned,  v.  12,  he  says  is 
equivalent  to  all  are  constituted  sinners,  v.  19;  which  latter 
expression  he  renders,  "  sie  werden  als  Sunder  angesehen  and 
behandelt,"  that  is,  they  were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners; 
see  his  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  p.  636,  640,  &c.  (Flatt 
renders  these  words  in  precisely  the  same  manner.)  The  Ra- 
tionalist Ammon  also  considers  the  apostle  as  teaching,  that  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  all  men  are  subject  to  death;  see 
Excursus  C.  to  Koppe's  Commentary  on  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans. 
Zachariae  in  his  Biblische  Theologie,  Vol.  VI.  p.  128,  has  an 
excellent  exposition  of  this  whole  passage.  The  question  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  he  says,  is  this,  "  Whether  God  re- 

*  Knapp,  in  his  Theological  Lectures  (German  Edition),  p.  29,  says,  "  In  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  fall,  eind  in  the  Old  Testament  generally,  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  is  not  mentioned  under  the  term  imputation,  although  the  doctrine  is 
contained  therein."  "  But  in  the  writings  of  the  Talmudists  and  Rabbins,  and  earlier 
in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  following  position 
asserted  in  express  words,  '  that  the  descendants  of  Adam  would  have  been  punished 
with  death  (of  the  body)  on  account  of  his  sin,  although  they  themselves  had  com- 
mitted no  sin.' "  On  the  next  page,  he  remarks, "  We  find  tliis  doctrine  most  clearly 
in  the  New  Testament  in  Rom.  5:  12,  &c.  The  modern  philosophers  and  theolo- 
gians found  here  mucli  which  was  inconsistent  with  their  philosophical  systems. 
Hence  many  explained  and  refined  so  long  on  the  passage,  until  the  idea  of  impu- 
tation was  entirely  excluded,  They  forgot  however  that  Paul  used  the  very  words 
and  expressions  in  common  use  on  this  subject  at  that  time  among  tlie  Jews,  and 
that  his  immediate  readers  could  not  have  understood  him  otherwise  than  as  teach- 
ing this  doctrine."  And  he  immediately  goes  on  to  show,  that  unless  we  are 
determined  to  do  violence  to  the  words  of  the  apostle,  we  must  admit  he  teaches 
that  all  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  This  is  a  theo- 
logian who  did  not  himself  admit  the  doctrine. 


188  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

garded  the  act  of  Adam  as  the  act  of  all  men,  or,  which  is  the 
same  thing,  whether  he  has  subjected  them  all  to  punishment,  on 
account  of  this  single  act."  This,  he  maintains,  the  apostle  asserts 
and  proves.  On  this  verse  he  remarks,  "  The  question  is  not  here 
immediately  about  the  propagation  of  a  corrupted  nature  to  all 
men,  and  of  the   personal  sins  committed  by  all  men,  but  of 
universal  guilt  (Strafwiirdigkeit,  liability  to  punishment),  in  the 
sight  of  God,  which  has  come  upon  all  men;  and  which  Paul  in 
the  sequel  does  not  rest  on  the  personal  sins  of  men,  but  only  on 
the  offence  of  one  man,  Adam,  v.  16."     Neither  the  corruption 
of  nature,  nor  the   actual  sins  of  men,  and  their  liability  on 
account  of  them,  is  either  questioned  or  denied,  but  the  simple 
statement  is,  that  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  all  men  are 
treated  as  sinners.     Zachariae,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  not  a 
Calvinist,  but  one  of  the  modern  and  moderate  Theologians  of 
Gottingen.    Whitby,  the  great  advocate  of  Arminianism,  says,  on 
these  words,  "  It  is  not  true  that  death  came  upon  all  men,  for 
that,  or  because  all  have  sinned.    {He  contends  for  the  rendering 
i7i  ivhom.)  For  the  apostle  directly  here  asserts  the  contrary,  viz. 
that  the  death  and  the  condemnation  to  it,  which  befell  all  men,, 
was  for  the  sin  of  Adam  only;  for  here  it  is  expressly  said,  that 
by  the  si?i  of  one  man  many  died;  that  the  sentence  was  from 
one,  and  by  one  m,an  sinning  to  condemnation;  and  that  by 
the  sin  of  one,  death  reigned,  by  one.     Therefore,  the  apostle 
doth  expressly  teach  us  that  this  death,  this  condemnation  to  it, 
came  not  upon  us  for  the  sin  of  all,  but  only  for  the  sin  of  one, 
i.  e.  of  that  one  Adam  in  whom  all  men  die,  1  Cor.   15:  22." 
Such  extracts  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  from  the  most  va- 
rious sources.    However  these  commentators  may  differ  in  other 
points,  they  almost  all  agree  in  the  general  idea,  which  is  the 
sum  of  the  w^hole  passage,  that  the  sin  of  Adam,. and  not  their 
own  individual  actual  transgressions,  is  the  ground  and  reason 
of  the  subjection  of  all  men  to  the  penal  evils  here  spoken  of. 
With  what  ])lausibility  can  an  interpretation,  commanding  the 
assent  of  men  so  various,  be  ascribed  to  theory  or  philosophy, 
or  love  of  a  particular  theological  system  ?     May  not  its  rejec- 
tion with  more  probability  be  attributed,  as  is  done  by  Kiiapp, 
to  theological  prejudice?     Certain  it  is,  at  least,  that  the  objec- 
tions against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  philosophical  or  theo- 
logical, rather  than  of  an  exegetical  or  philological  character. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  1S9 

(13,  14)  For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world,  &c.  These 
verses  are  connected  by  for  with  v.  12,  as  introducing  the 
proof  of  the  declaration  that  death  had  passed  on  all  men  on  ac- 
count of  one  man.  The  proof  is  this;  the  infliction  of  penal 
evils  implies  the  violation  of  law;  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
Moses  will  not  account  for  the  universality  of  death,  because 
men  died  before  that  law  was  given.  Neither  is  the  violation 
of  the  law  of  nature  sufficient  to  explain  the  fact  that  all  men 
are  subject  to  death,  because  even  those  die  who  have  never 
broken  that  law.  As,  therefore,  death  supposes  transgression, 
and  neither  the  law  of  Moses  nor  the  law  of  nature  embraces 
all  the  victims  of  death,  it  follows  that  men  are  subject  to  penal 
evils  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  for  the  offence  of 
one  that  many  die. 

In  order  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment, it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  term  death  stands 
for  penal  evil;  not  for  this  or  that  particular  form  of  it,  but 
for  any  and  every  evil  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of 
law.  Paul's  reasoning  does  not  rest  upon  the  mere  fact  that 
all  men,  even  infants,  are  subject  to  natural  death;  for  this  might 
be  accounted  for  by  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  of 
the  law  of  nature,  or  by  their  inherent  native  depravity.  This 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  may  account  for  the  universality 
of  natural  death.  But  no  one  of  these  causes,  nor  all  combined, 
can  account  for  the  infliction  of  all  the  penal  evils  to  which 
men  are  subjected.  The  great  fact  in  the  apostle's  mind  w-as, 
that  God  regards  and  treats  all  men,  from  the  first  moment  of 
their  existence,  as  out  of  fellowship  with  himself^  ^s  having  for- 
feited his  favour.  Instead  of  entering  into  communion  with 
them  the  moment  they  begin  to  exist  (as  he  did  with  Adam), 
and  forming  them  by  his  spirit  in  his  own  moral  image,  he  re- 
gards- them  as  out  of  his  favour,  and  withholds  the  influences  of 
the  Spirit.  Why  is  this  ?  Why  does  God  thus  deal  wdth  the 
human  race  ?  The  fact  that  he  does  thus  deal  with  them  is  not 
denied  by  any  except  Pelagians.  Prof.  Stuart  does  not  deny 
it.  Why  then  is  it  ?  Here  is  a  form  of  death  which  the  viola- 
tion of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  na- 
ture, the  existence  of  innate  depravity,  separately  or  combined, 
are  insufficient  to  account  for.  Its  infliction  is  antecedent  to 
them  all;  and  yet  it  is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the  sum. 


190  ROMANS  5:  12— 21. 

Men  begin  to  exist  out  of  communion  with  God,  This  is  the 
fact  which  no  sophistry  can  get  out  of  the  bible  or  the  history 
of  the  world.  Paul  tells  us  why  it  is.  It  is  because  we  fell  in 
Adam;  it  is  for  the  one  offence  of  one  man  that  all  thus  die. 
The  covenant  being  formed  with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself, 
but  also  for  his  posterity  (in  other  words,  Adam  having  been 
placed  on  trial  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his  race),  his 
act  was,  in  virtue  of  this  relation,  regarded  as  our  act;  God 
withdrew  from  us  as  he  did  from  him;  in  consequence  of  this 
withdrawal  we  begin  to  exist  in  moral  darkness,  destitute  of  a 
disposition  to  delight  in  God,  and  prone  to  deliglit  in  ourselves 
and  the  world.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  ruined  us;  it  was 
the  sround  of  the  withdrawina;  of  the  divine  favour  from  the 
whole  race;  and  the  intervention  of  the  Son  of  God  for  our  sal- 
vation is  an  act  of  \n\re,  sovereign  and  wonderful  grace. 

Whatever  obscurity,  therefore,  rests  upon  tliis  passage,  arises 
from  taking  the  word  deuth  in  the  narrow  sense  in  which  it  is 
commonly  used  among  men;  if  taken  in  its  scriptural  sense,  the 
whole  argument  is  plain  and  conclusive.  Let  j^^nal  evil  be 
substituted  for  the  word  death,  and  the  argument  will  stand 
thus,  *  All  men  are  subject  to  penal  evils  on  account  of  one  man; 
this  is  the  position  to  be  proved,  (v.  12).  That  such  is  the  ease 
is  evident,  because  the  infliction  of  a  penalty  supposes  the  vio- 
lation of  law.  But  such  evil  was  inflicted  before  the  giving  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  it  comes  on  men  before  the  transgression  of 
the  law  of  nature,  or  even  the  existence  of  inherent  depravity, 
it  must,  therefore,  be  for  the  oficnce  of  one  man  that  judgment 
has  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  The  wide  sense  in 
which  the  sacred  writers  use  the  word  death,  accounts  for  the 
fact  that  the  dissolution  of  the  body  (which  is  one  form  of  the 
manifestation  of  the  divine  displeasure),  is  not  only  included  in 
it,  but  is  often  the  prominent  idea. 

Until  the  law.  That  the  law  of  Moses  is  here  intended  is 
plain  from  v.  14,  where  the  period  marked  by  the  words  until 
the  law,  is  described  by  saying  from  Adam  to  Moses. 

Sin  was  in  the  world,  that  is,  men  were  regarded  as  sinners. 
These  words  must  have  the  same  meaning  as  all  have  sinned 
in  the  preceding  verse.  They  neither  mean  that  men  were  cor- 
rupt, nor  that  they  were  actual  sinners,  but  that  they  were 
treated  as  sinners.     This  is  obvious  from  the  next  clause,  '  Be- 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  191 

fore  the  time  of  Moses  men  were  treated  as  sinners,  but  they 
are  not  so  treated  where  there  is  no  law.'  Sin  is  not  imputed 
lohere  there  is  no  law.  That  is,  sin  is  not  laid  to  one's  account 
and  punished;  see  ch.  4:8,"  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the 
Lord  will  not  impute  sin;"  see  remarks  on  ch.  4:  3,  and  the 
frequently  recurring  equivalent  expressions,  "  Plis  iniquity  shall 
be  upon  him,"  as  in  Num.  15:  31 ;  "  He  shall  bear  his  iniquity," 
Lev.  5:  1.  The  principle  here  advanced,  and  on  which  the 
apostle's  argument  rests,  is  that  the  infliction  of  penal  evils  im- 
plies the  violation  of  law.  The  only  question  then  is,  what 
law  have  all  mankind  violated  so  as  to  become  subject  to  death  ? 
The  answer  follows  in  the  next  verse. 

There  are  three  other  interpretations  of  this  passage  and  of 
the  object  and  purport  of  Paul's  argument  which  deserve  to  be 
noticed.  I.  It  is  admitted  that  these  verses  are  intended  as  a 
confirmation  of  the  apostle's  statement  in  v.  12,  as  the  ^'■for 
with  which  they  are  introduced  very  clearly  shows.  What  has 
he  said  ?  That  all  have  sinned,  and  that  all  are  under  sentence 
of  death.  How  is  this  elucidated  and  confinned  ?  By  taking 
a  case  in  which  one  might  be  disposed  to  say,  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  prove  that  men  are  sinners.  To  meet  this  difficulty, 
which  might  easily  arise,  he  avers  that  men  were  sinners  be- 
fore the  giving  of  the  Mosaic  law;  although  they  are  not  them- 
selves prone  to  acknowledge  their  guilt  in  such  circumstances 
(where  there  is  no  revealed  law),  or  they  make  but  little  ac- 
count of  it,"  Prof.  Stuart,  p.  216.  He  accordingly  understands 
the  clause  sin  is  not  inijnited,  as  meaning,  is  not  regarded  by 
the  sinner  himself,  is  not  appreciated  or  laid  to  heart.  But  to 
this  whole  interpretation  there  are  insuperable  objections,  1.  As 
remarked  above,  it  leaves  out  of  view  the  main  idea  of  v.  12, 
as  expressed  by  the  words  by  one  man.  That  verse  does  not 
state  "  that  all  have  sinned,  and  all  are  under  sentence  of 
death  "  merely,  but  that  all  are  regarded  as  sinners  and  are  ex- 
posed to  death  on  account  of  one  man.  This  is  the  very  pith 
and  point  of  the  verse,  and  is,  therefore,  the  thing  to  be  proved, 
and  not  merely  that  all  men  are  sinners.  2.  It  puts  a  sense 
upon  the  phrase  siii  is  not  imputed,  which  it  has  in  no  other 
passage.  The  question  is  not  merely  whether  the  word  ren- 
dered to  impute  may  not,  in  certain  connexions,  mean  to  re- 
gard or  lay  to  heart,  but  whether  the  phrase  sin  is  not  ini- 


192  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

puted  can,  especially  in  such  a  connexion,  have  this  sense.  No 
similar  example  has  been  produced.  And  it  is  so  contrary  to 
Paul's  usage,  and  to  the  constant  meaning  of  the  common 
phrase  to  impute  sin  in  the  scriptures,  that  Tholuck  justly  de- 
scribes this  interpretation  as  a  desperate  resource.*  3.  This  in- 
terpretation not  only  proceeds  on  the  assumption  of  an  erro- 
neous view  of  V.  12,  and  of  the  relation  of  vs.  13  and  14  to  it; 
but  it  also  ascribes  to  those  verses  a  sense  entirely  inappropriate 
to  the  context.  It  supposes  the  apostle  to  reason  thus.  '  All 
men  are  sinners.  No;'  answers  the  Jew,  'because  before  the 
law  of  Moses  there  was  no  law,  and,  therefore,  no  sin.  Yes;' 
replies  Paul,  '  they  were  sinners,  although  not  aware  of  it  where 
there  is  no  law.'  But  this  view  of  the  passage  requires  us  to 
assume  either  that  the  Jews  thought  those  who  were  destitute 
of  the  law  of  Moses  were  not  sinners,  when  every  one  knows 
they  regarded  them  as  pre-eminently  such;  or  that  Paul  is  here 
answering  a  silly  cavil  which  the  objector  himself  knew  to  be 
senseless;  an  employment  of  his  time  to  which  the  apostle  no 
where  else  condescends.  Besides,  it  is  not  true  that  sin  is  not 
regarded,  that  there  is  no  sense  of  right  or  wrong,  where  there 
is  no  law.  This  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  fact  and  to  Paul's 
doctrine,  ch.  2:  14.  This  objection  is,  in  a  measure,  obviated  by 
saying  the  declaration  is  to  be  taken  in  a  modified  sense;  so  that 
the  meaning  is,  men  are  not  so  well  aware  of  their  sins  without 
a  law  as  with  one.  This  no  doubt  is  the  case;  but  the  necessity 
of  thus  modifying  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  only  renders 
it  more  obvious  that  a  sense  is  ascribed  to  it  inconsistent  with 
the  context. 

II.  A  second  interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  a  large 
number  of  commentators  and  theologians,  supposes  that  the 
word  death  is  to  be  understood  of  natural  death  alone.  The 
reasoning  of  the  apostle  then  is,  '  As  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
one  man  all  men  are  condemned  to  die,  so  on  account  of  the 
righteousness  of  one  all  are  made  partakers  of  life,'  v.  12.  The 
proof  that  all  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  given  in  vs.  13,  14.     *  The  infliction  of  the  specific  penalty 

*  Noch  ist  fine  KC\v;iltsaiiie  Hiilfo  zii  pr\v;iliiicn,(lif  Maiifho  diosem  Ausspruche 
des  Apostles  zu  bringcn  gesucht  habcn.  Sie  habcn  dem  iXkoysTv  eiiic  andcrc 
Bedeutunp;  bcigclrgt.  Sio  haben  es  in  der  Bodcutung  achten,  R'ucksicht  nehmen 
gcnommcji. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  193 

of  death,  supposes  the  violation  of  a  law  to  which  that  particu- 
lar penalty  was  attached.  This  could  not  be  the  law  of  Moses, 
since  those  die  who  never  violated  that  law;  and,  in  short,  all 
men  die,  although  they  have  never  broken  any  express  com- 
mand attended  by  the  sanction  of  death.  The  liability  of  all 
men,  therefore,  to  this  specific  form  of  evil,  is  to  be  traced  not 
to  their  own  individual  character  or  conduct,  but  to  the  sin  of 
Adam.'  Some  of  those  who  adopt  this  view  of  the  passage 
are  consistent  enough  to  carry  it  through,  and  make  the  life 
which  is  restored  to  all  by  Christ,  as  here  spoken  of,  to  be 
nothing  more  than  the  life  of  the  body,  i.  e.  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.*  It  will  be  observed  that  this  interpretation  is, 
as  to  its  main  principle,  identical  with  that  presented  above  as 
correct.  That  is,  it  assumes  that  v.  12  teaches  that  God  regard- 
ed the  act  of  Adam  as  the  act  of  the  whole  race,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  he  subjected  all  men  to  punishment  on  account  of 
his  transgression.  And  it  makes  vs.  13,  14  the  proof  that  the 
subjection  of  all  men  to  the  penal  evil  here  specially  in  view, 
to  be,  not  the  corruption  of  their  nature,  nor  their  own  indi- 
vidual sins,  but  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is,  however,  founded  on 
two  assumptions;  the  one  of  which  is  erroneous,  and  the  other 
gratuitous.  In  the  first  place,  it  assumes  that  the  death  here 
spoken  of  is  mere  natural  death,  which,  as  shown  above,  is  con- 
trary both  to  the  scriptural  use  of  the  term  and  to  the  imme- 
diate context.  And,  secondly,  it  assumes  that  the  violation  of 
the  law  of  nature  could  not  be  justly  followed  by  the  death  of 
the  body,  because  that  particular  form  of  evil  was  not  threatened 
as  the  sanction  of  that  law.  But  this  assumption  is  gratuitous, 
and  would  be  as  well  authorized  if  made  in  reference  to  any 
other  punishment  of  such  transgressions;  since  no  definite  spe- 
cific evil,  as  the  expression  of  the  divine  displeasure  was  made 
known  to  those  who  had  no  external  revelation.  Yet,  as  Paul 
says,  Rom.  1 :  32,  the  wicked  heathen  knew  they  were  worthy 
of  death,  i.  e.  of  the  effects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  The  par- 
ticular manner  of  the  exhibition  of  that  displeasure  is  a  matter 
of  indifference.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  it  is  not  in- 
volved either  in  this  or  the  commonly  received  interpretation 
of  this  passage,  that  men,  before  the  time  of  Moses,  were  not 

*  See  Whitby  on  this  paiteage. 
25 


194  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

punishable  for  their  own  sins;  although  this  strange  misconcep- 
tion is  frequently  to  be  met  with.* 

III.  A  third  interpretation  is  that  adopted  by  certain  writers, 
who  deny  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  and  who  suppose  that  the 
apostle  is  labouring  to  prove  that  the  corruption  of  nature  de- 
rived from  Adam  is  the  ground  of  the  universality  of  death. 
They  make  the  apostle  reason  thus,  '  As  sin  is  not  imputed 
where  there  is  no  law,  that  is,  as  men  are,  comparatively  speak- 
ing, not  responsible  for  their  otfences  when  involved  in  ignorance 
and  destitute  of  a  revelation,  and  yet  as  even  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, death  reigned  over  them,  the  ground  of  the  univer- 
sality of  death  is  to  be  sought  not  in  their  own  transgressions, 
but  in  their  participation  of  the  corrupt  nature  of  Adam.'     So 
Tholuck,  and  Schott  in  his  Opuscula.     But  it  is  obvious,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  argument,  as  thus  stated,  is  entirely  incon- 
clusive.    It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  sins  of  men  are  aggravated 
by  being  committed  under  the  light  of  an  express  revelation  of 
the  divine  will,  and  of  course  that  the  heathen  are  less  guilty  in 
the  sight  of  God  than  the  equally  immoral  Jew  or  Christian. 
But  as  this  is  only  a  comparative,  and  not  an  entire  freedom 
from  responsibility,  it  forms  no  ground  of  an  argument,  that  the 
heathen  did  not  die  for  their  own  sins,  but  in  virtue  of  the 
depraved  nature  which  they  inherited  from  Adam.     2.  This 
argument  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Paul's  own  declarations, 
that  the  heathen  were  not  only  partially  responsible  for  their 
sins,  but  were  "  worthy  of  death"  (1:  32)  on  account  of  them; 
see  also  ch.  2:  14.     This  interpretation,  therefore,  cannot  be 
adopted.     No  one,  however,  ought  to  do  these  distinguished 
writers  the  injustice  of  supposing  them  to  teach  that  men  from 
Adam  to  Moses  were  not  responsible  for  their  own  offences. 
They  affirm  the  reverse  in  direct  terms.     "  This  non-imputa- 
tion," says  Tholuck,  "  does  by  no  means  imply  the  absence  of 
guilt,  since  Paul  says  explicitly  that  the  heathen  are  without 


*  See  PnoF.  Stuart,  p.  216,  and  the  last  paragraph  of  p.  223;  and  Mh. 
Bahsf-s,  p.  119.  The  former  says,  "  How  can  it  be  in  anyway  rendered  probable, 
or  even  plausible,  that  men  were  sinners  only  by  imputation  ?  It  is  feirly  out  of 
the  question.  The  attempt  to  establish  sueh  an  interpretation  must  fail."  The 
latter  says,  "  It  is  utterly  absurd  to  suppose  that  men  from  the  time  of  Adam  to 
Moses  were  sinners  oiily  by  imputation^  In  these  positions,  we  suppose  all  men 
living,  or  who  ever  did  live,  agree. 


ROMANS  5:  12— 21.  195 

excuse,"  p.  187.  And  he  argues  to  show  that  ignorance,  &c. 
when  unavoidable,  diminish  the  aggravation  of  sin,  while  he 
freely  admits  that  all  men  have  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  will 
of  God  to  render  them  inexcusable. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  various  attempts  to  get  over  the 
difficulties  presented  in  these  verses  ( 1 3, 14).  These  interpreta- 
tions are  all  of  them  forced  and  unsatisfactory.  We  are  driven 
back,  therefore,  to  the  view  of  the  passage  first  presented,  as 
the  only  one  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  words,  and  in 
harmony  with  the  design  and  argument  of  the  apostle. 

(14)  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses. 
That  is,  men  were  subject  to  death  before  the  law  of  Moses  was 
given,  and  consequently  not  on  account  of  violating  it.  There 
must  be  some  other  ground,  therefore,  of  their  exposure  to 
death. 

Even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude 
of  Adarri's  transgression*  That  is,  who  had  not  sinned  as 
Adam  did.  The  question  is,  what  is  the  point  of  dissimilarity 
to  which  the  apostle  here  refers?  Some  say  it  is  that  Adam 
violated  a  positive  command  to  which  the  sanction  of  death  was 
expressly  added,  and  that  those  referred  to  did  not.  The  prin- 
cipal objections  to  this  interpretation  are,  1.  That  it  destroys 
the  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  persons  here  alluded 
to.  It  makes  Paul,  in  effect,  reason  thus,  '  Death  reigned  over 
those  who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law,  even  over  those 
who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law.'  It  is  obvious  that  the 
first  clause  of  the  verse  describes  a  general  class,  and  the  second 
clause,  which  is  distinguished  from  the  first  by  the  word  even^ 
only  a  portion  of  that  class.  All  men  who  died  from  Adam  to 
Moses,  died  without  violating  a  positive  command.  The  class, 
therefore,  which  is  distinguished  from  them,  must  be  contrasted 
with  Adam  on  some  other  ground  than  that  which  is  common 
to  the  whole.  2.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  the 
context,  because  it  involves  us  in  all  the  difficulties  specified 
above,  as  attending  the  sense  which  it  requires  us  to  put  upon 
vs.  13,  14,  and  their  connexion  with  v.  12.     We  must  suppose 


*  Sicut  Adamus,  quum  legem  transgressus  est,  mortuus  est;  pariter  etiam  mor- 
tui  sunt,  qui  non  transgress!  sunt,  vel  potius  non  peccarunt,  nam  Paulus  verba 
variat,  de  Adamo  deque  ceteris  loquens. — Bencjf.i.. 


196  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

these  verses  designed  to  prove  that  all  men  are  sinners,  which, 
as  just  shown,  is  at  variance  with  the  context,  with  the  obvious 
meaning  of  v.  12,  with  the  scope  of  the  passage,  and  the  drift  of 
the  argument.  Or,  we  must  adopt  the  interpretation  of  those 
who  confine  the  word  death  to  the  dissolution  of  the  body,  and 
make  the  apostle  argue  to  show  that  this  particular  evil  is  to  be 
referred  not  to  the  personal  sins  of  men,  but  to  the  sin  of  Adam. 
Or,  we  are  driven  to  the  unsatisfactory  view  of  the  passage 
quoted  above  from  Tholuck.  In  short,  these  verses,  when  the 
clause  in  question  is  thus  explained,  present  insuperable  diffi- 
culties. 

Others  understand  the  difference  between  Adam  and  those 
intended  to  be  described  in  this  clause,  to  be,  that  Adam  sinned 
personally  and  actually,  the  others  not.  In  favour  of  this  view 
it  may  be  argued,  1.  That  the  words  evidently  admit  of  this 
interpretation  as  naturally  as  of  the  other.  Paul  simply  says, 
the  persons  referred  to  did  not  sin  as  Adam  did.  Whether  he 
means  that  they  did  not  sin  at  all,  that  they  were  not  sinners 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term;  or  that  they  had  not  sinned 
against  the  same  kind  of  law,  depends  on  the  context,  and  is  not 
determined  by  the  mere  form  of  expression.  2.  If  v.  12  teaches 
that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  if 
this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  passage,  and  if,  as  is  admitted, 
vs.  13,  14  are  designed  to  prove  the  assertion  of  verse  12, 
then  is  it  necessary  that  the  apostle  should  show  that  death 
comes  on  those  who  have  no  personal  and  actual  sins  to  answer 
for.  This  he  does.  '  Death  reigns  not  only  over  those  who 
have  never  broken  any  positive  law,  but  even  over  those  who 
have  never  sinned  as  Adam  did;  that  is,  who  have  never  in  their 
own  persons  violated  any  law,  by  which  their  exposure  to  death 
can  be  accounted  for.'  All  the  arguments,  therefore,  which  go  to 
establish  the  interpretation  given  above  of  v.  12,  or  the  correct- 
ness of  the  exhibition  of  the  course  of  the  apostle's  argument, 
and  design  of  the  whole  passage,  bear  with  all  their  force  in  sup- 
port of  the  view  here  given  of  this  clause.  The  opposite  inter- 
pretation, as  was  attempted  to  be  proved  above,  rests  on  a  false 
exegesis  of  v.  12,  and  a  false  view  of  the  context.  Almost  all 
the  objections  to  this  interpretation,  being  founded  on  misap- 
prehension, are  answered  by  the  mere  statement  of  the  case. 
The  simple  doctrine  and  argument  of  the  apostle  is,  that  there 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  197 

ARE  PENAL  EVILS  WHICH  COME  UPON  MEN  ANTECEDENTLY  TO 
ANY  TRANSGRESSIONS  OF  THEIR  OWN,  AND  AS  THE  INFLICTION 
OF  THESE  EVILS  IMPLIES  A  VIOLATION  OF  LAW,  IT  FOLLOWS- 
THAT  THEY  ARE  REGARDED  AND  TREATED  AS  SINNERS  ON  THE 
GROUND  OF  THE    DISOBEDIENCE  OF  ANOTHER.       Ill  other  WOrds, 

that  it  was  by  the  offence  of  one  man  that  judgment  came  on 
all  men  to  condemnation.  It  is  of  course  not  implied  in  this 
statement  or  argument  that  men  are  not  now,  or  were  not  from 
Adam  to  Moses,  punishable  for  their  own  sins,  but  simply  that 
they  are  subject  to  penal  evils  which  cannot  be  accounted  for 
on  the  ground  of  their  personal  transgressions.  This  statement, 
which  contains  the  whole  doctrine  of  imputation,  is  so  obviously 
contained  in  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  and  stands  out  so  con- 
spicuously in  the  bible,  and  is  so  fully  established  by  the  history 
of  the  world,  that  it  is  frequently  and  freely  admitted  by  Prof. 
Stuart*  and  the  great  majority  of  commentators. 

WJio  ivas  a  figured  of  him  that  was  to  come.     The  word 

*  See  his  analysis  of  vs.  15,  16,  17,  his  whole  commentaiy  on  v.  15,  and  many 
admissions  in  his  exposition  of  vs.  16,  17,  18.  On  page  227,  he  says,  "  If  ^avaTog 
means,  as  I  have  already  stated  it  to  mean,  evil  of  any  kind  in  this  world  and  in 
the  next,  then  it  is  true  that  Adam  did,  hy  his  offence,  cause  SavaTOS  to  come  on 
all  without  exception,  inasmuch  as  all  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  and  in  such  a 
state  that  their  passions  will,  whenever  they  become  moral  agents,  lead  them  to  sin. 
All  too  are  heirs  of  more  or  less  suffering.  It  is  true,  then,  that  all  suffer  on  Adam's 
account ;  that  all  are  brought  under  more  or  less  of  the  sentence  of  death."  Of  course, 
to  be  bom  destitute  of  holiness,  &c.  is  not  on  account  of  our  personal  transgressions. 
And  these  are  penal  evils,  part  of  "the  sentence  of  death  ;"  or,  as  Prof.  Stuart  ex- 
presses himself  on  p.  241,  "part  of  the  penalty  of  the  law."  Again,  on  p.  228,  he 
says,  "  All,  in  some  respect  or  other,  are  involved  in  it  (the  sentence):  as  to  more 
or  less  of  it,  all  are  subject  to  it."  "  In  like  manner,  all  receive  some  important 
benefits  from  Christ,  even  without  any  concurrence  of  their  own."  It  is  therefore 
without  any  concurrence  of  their  own,  that  men  are  subject  to  the  penal  evils  spo- 
ken of.  This  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  imputation,  as  taught  by  the  strictest  Cal- 
vinistic  divines. 

Mr.  Barnes  makes  the  same  admission  in  nearly  the  same  words.  See  p.  122, 
last  sentence. 

t  nwg  Tu-nos  ]  (p'/jffiv  oVi  uif'KS^  hsTvos  To'ig  £|  ajToiJ,  xaiVoiye  (jmi  (payoudiv 
ctTTo  Tou  ^iiXov,  ysyovsv  a'/Viog  SavocTou  tqu  6ia  Tigv  /3^ij(Tiv  slaa'x_6ivTos,  o'otu 
xai  6  y^Pidroi:  Torg  t'|  auTou,  xaiVoiys  oO  dixoLioir^oLy/jdatii,  yiyove  •K^o^svog 
5ixaiorfuvy)j,  'i]v  6ia  tou  dravpov  crarfiv  'Jj/xn/  l^apiffaro,  Sia  touto  avw  xa;  xa.ru 
TOU  £vog  £)(£Tai,  xai  ffuvs^^^ug  TOVTO  sk  (Jis'tfov  cpiesi. — CiinrsosTOM.  "  How  a 
type  1  he  says,  because  as  he  was  the  cause  of  the  death  introduced  by  eating 
(the  forbidden  fruit),  to  all  who  are  of  him,  although  they  did  not  eat  of  the  tree ; 
so  also  is  Christ  the  procurer  of  the  righteousness  which,  by  means  of  the  cross,  he 


198  ROMANS  5:  12— 21. 

translated  figure  means  properly  a  prints  or  impression  of  any 
thing,  John  20:  25,  where  it  is  used  of  the  print  of  the  nails; 
then  more  generally  an  image,  model,  likeness,  type.  The 
simple  meaning  is  that  Adam  was  like  Christ.  Him  that  was 
to  come,  i.  e.  the  Messiah,  who  is  called  the  second  Adam,  1 
Cor.  15:  45;  and  from  the  fact,  that  he  had  heen  long  expected, 
"  He  that  was  to  come,"  Matt.  11:3.  The  point  of  resemblance 
between  Adam  and  Christ,  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  context. 
It  is  this;  each  stood  as  the  head  and  representative  of  all  con- 
nected with  them.  By  the  offence  of  the  one  all  connected 
with  him  are  subject  to  death;  and  by  the  righteousness  of  the 
other  all  connected  with  him  are  justified  and  saved.* 

As  Paul  commenced  this  section  with  the  design  of  in- 
stituting this  comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam,  and  inter- 
rupted himself  to  prove,  in  vs.  13,  14,  that  Adam  was  really 
the  representative  of  his  race,  or  that  all  men  are  subject  to 
death  for  his  offence:  and  having,  at  the  close  of  v.  14,  an- 
nounced the  fact  of  this  resemblance  by  calling  Adam  a  type  of 
Christ,  he  again  stops  to  limit  and  explain  this  declaration,  by 
pointing  out  the  real  nature  of  the  analogy.  This  he  does 
principally,  by  showing  in  verses  15,  16,  17,  the  particulars  in 
which  the  comparison  does  not  hold.  And  in  vs.  18, 19,  which 
are  a  resumption  of  the  sentiment  of  v.  12,  he  states  the  grand 
point  of  their  agreement. 

(15)  Bxit  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  The 
cases,  although  parallel,  are  not  precisely  alike.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  far  more  consistent  with  our  views  of  the  character 


graciously  gives  to  us  all,  for  those  that  are  of  him ;  on  this  account  he  first  and 
last  makes  the  one  so  prominent,  continually  bringing  it  forward."  This  is  an 
interesting  passage  coming  from  a  source  so  different  from  the  Augustinian  school 
of  theology.  Every  essential  point  of  the  common  Calvinistic  interpretation  is 
fully  stated.  Adam  is  the  cause  of  death  coming  on  all,  independently  of  any 
transgressions  of  their  own;  as  Christ  is  the  author  of  justification  without  our 
own  works.  And  the  many,  in  the  one  clause,  are  all  who  are  of  Adam  ;  and 
the  many,  in  the  other,  those  who  are  of  Christ. 

*  The  Jew  was  accustomed  to  call  the  Messiah  the  second  Adam.  Neve  Schalom, 
B.  IX.  c.  5,  8,  "  The  last  Adam  is  the  Messiah,  he  will  be  higlier  than  Moses;  and 
their  declaration  is  also  true,  who  say,  he  will  be  higher  than  the  ministering  an- 
gels of  God,"  &c.  The  author  of  that  book  also  says  that  the  Messiah  will  remove 
sin,  and  restore  the  life  forfeited  by  it,  and  that  he  will  do  all  this  as  the  antitype  of 
Adam. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  199 

of  God,  that  many  should  be  benefited  by  the  merit  of  one  man, 
than  that  they  should  suffer  for  the  sin  of  one.  If  the  latter  has 
happened,  much  more  may  we  expect  the  former  to  occur. 
The  attentive  reader  of  this  passage  will  perceive  constantly 
increasing  evidence  that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not  to  show 
that  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ  are  greater  than  the  evils 
caused  by  Adam;  but  to  illustrate  and  confirm  the  prominent 
doctrine  of  the  epistle,  that  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  This  is  obvious  from  the  sentiment  of 
this  verse, '  If  we  die  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  much  more  may  we 
live  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ.' 

The  expression  hut  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  in  the  free 
gift,  is  singularly  concise  and  by  itself  obscure.  But  viewed 
in  the  light  of  the  context,  it  is  sufficiently  plain.  The  offence 
includes  not  only  the  idea  of  the  sin,  but  of  the  punishment  of 
Adam;  and  the  free  gift  is  not  only  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
considered  as  a  gracious  gift  of  God,  but  also  its  reward.  The 
former,  therefore,  is  equivalent  to  the  word  fall;  and  the  latter 
to  its  opposite,  gracious  restoration.  The  context  shows  this 
to  be  the  full  meaning  of  the  words.  As,  however,  the  sin  is 
the  most  prominent  idea  in  the  one  phrase,  and  the  righteous- 
ness in  the  other,  these  alone  seem  to  be  intended  in  the  next 
clause,  their  consequences  being  left  out  of  view. 

For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  that  is, 
if  on  account  of  the  ofience  of  the  one  many  die.  The  dative, 
which  is  the  case  in  which  the  word  for  offence  {'Ka^airri^iMTi) 
here  occurs,  is  used  very  frequently  to  express  the  ground  or 
reason  of  a  thing.  Rom.  11:  20,  "Because  of  unbelief  they 
were  broken  oif,"  &c.  Many,  or  rather  the  many,  evidently 
means  the  multitude,  the  mass,  the  whole  race;  as  the  words 
many  and  all  are  interchangeably  used  throughout  the  pas- 
sage. 

It  is  here,  therefore,  expressly  asserted  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  the  cause  of  all  his  posterity's  being  subjected  to  death, 
that  is,  to  penal  evil.  But  it  may  still  be  asked  whether  it  was 
the  occasional  or  the  immediate  cause?  That  is,  whether  the 
apostle  means  to  say  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of 
all  men  being  placed  in  such  circumstances  that  they  all  sin, 
and  thus  incur  death;  or  that  by  being  the  cause  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  their  nature,  it  is  thus  indirectly  the  cause  of  their  con- 


200  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

demnation;  or  whether  he  is  to  he  understood  as  saying  that  his 
sin  is  the  direct  judicial  ground  or  reason  for  the  infliction  of 
penal  evil  ?  It  has  been  frequently  said  that  this  is  all  theory, 
philosophy,  system,  &:c.  But  any  one  may  see  that  it  is  a  mere 
exegetical  question ;  what  is  the  meaning  of  a  given  phrase  ? 
Does  the  dative  here  express  the  occasional  cause,  or  the  ground 
or  reason  of  the  result  attributed  to  the  offence  of  one  man  ? 
It  is  a  mere  question  of  fact;  the  fact  is  all;  and  there  is  neither 
theory  nor  philosophy  involved  in  the  matter.  If  Paul  says 
that  the  offence  of  one  is  the  ground  and  reason  of  the  many 
being  subject  to  death,  he  says  all  that  the  advocates  of  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  say.  That  this  is  the  strict  exegetical 
meaning  of  the  passage,  appears  from  the  following  reasons; 
1.  That  such  may  be  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  words  as 
they  here  stand,  no  one  can  pretend  to  doubt.  That  is,  no  one 
can  deny  that  the  dative  case  can  express  the  ground  or  reason 
as  well  as  the  occasion  of  a  thing.  2.  This  interpretation  is  not 
only  possible,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  but  it  is  demanded,  in  this  connexion,  by  the  plainest 
rules  of  exposition;  because  the  sentiment  expressed  by  these 
words  is  confessedly  the  same  as  that  taught  in  those  which  fol- 
low; and  they,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  will  not  bear  the 
opposite  interpretation.  3.  It  is  demanded  by  the  whole  de- 
sign and  drift  of  the  passage.  The  very  point  of  the  compari- 
son is,  that  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  not  our  own 
works,  is  the  ground  of  our  justification;  so  the  sin  of  Adam, 
antecedently  to  any  sins  of  our  own,  is  the  ground  of  the  in- 
fliction of  certain  penal  evils.  If  the  latter  be  denied,  the  very 
point  of  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam  is  destroyed. 
4.  This  interpretation  is  so  plainly  the  correct  and  natural  one, 
that  it  is,  as  shown  above,  freely  admitted  by  the  most  strenu- 
ous opponents  of  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches. 

Much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  hy  grace,  which 
is  by  one  -man  hath  abounded  unto  many.  Had  Paul  been 
studious  of  uniformity  in  the  structure  of  his  sentences,  this 
clause  would  have  been  differently  worded.  '  If  by  the  offence 
of  one  many  die,  much  more  by  the  free  gift  of  one  shall  many 
live.'  The  meaning  is  the  same.  The  force  of  the  passage 
lies  in  the  words  much  more.  The  idea  is  not  that  the  grace 
is  more  abundant  and  efficacious  than  the  offence  and  its  conse- 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  201 

quences;  this  idea  is  expressed  in  v.  20,  but  if  the  one  dispensa- 
tion has  occurred,  much  more  may  the  other;  if  we  die  for  one, 
much  more  may  we  live  by  another.  The  first  clause  of  the 
verse  may  be  thus  interpreted,  '  the  grace  of  God,  even  the  gift 
by  grace;'  so  that  the  latter  phrase  is  explanatory  of  the  former. 
If  they  are  to  be  distinguished,  the  first  refers  to  the  cause, 
viz.  the  grace  of  God;  and  the  second  to  the  result,  viz.  the 
gift  by  grace,  i.  e.  the  gracious  or  free  gift.  Which  is  by 
one  man,  Jesus  Christ;  that  is,  which  comes  to  us  through 
Christ.  This  free  gift  is  of  course  the  opposite  of  what  comes 
upon  us  for  the  sake  of  Adam.  Guilt  and  condemnation  come 
from  him;  righteousness  and  consequent  acceptance  from  Jesus 
Christ.  What  is  here  called  the  free  gift,  is,  in  v.  17,  called  the 
gift  of  righteousness.  Hath  ahounded  unto  many;  that  is, 
has  been  freely  and  abundantly  bestowed  on  many.  Whether 
the  many,  in  this  clause,  is  co-extensive  numerically  with  the 
many  in  the  other,  will  be  considered  under  v.  IS. 

(16)  Jind  not  as  it  was  hy  one  that  sinned*  so  is  gift,  &c. 
This  clause,  as  it  stands  in  the  original,  and  not  as  by  one 
that  sinned,  the  gift,  is  obviously  elliptical.  Some  word  cor- 
responding to  gift  is  to  be  supplied  in  the  first  member.  Either 
offence,  which  is  opposed  to  the  free  gift  in  the  preceding  verse; 
or  judgment,  which  occurs  in  the  next  clause.  The  sense  then 
is,  'The  gift  (of  justification,  see  v.  17)  was  not  like  the  sen- 
tence which  came  by  one  that  sinned.'  So  Prof.  Stuart,  who 
very  appositely  renders  and  explains  the  whole  verse  thus, 
"  '  Yea,  the  [sentence]  by  one  who  sinned,  is  not  like  the  free 
gift;  for  the  sentence  by  reason  of  one  [offence]  was  unto  con- 
demnation [was  a  condemning  sentence];  but  the  free  gift  [par- 
don] is  of  7nany  offences,  unto  justification,  i.  e.  is  a  sentence 
of  acquittal  from  condemnation.'  "  The  point  of  this  verse  is, 
that  the  sentence  of  condemnation  which  passed  on  all  ment 
for  the  sake  of  Adam,  was  for  one  offence,  whereas  we  are  jus- 
tified by  Christ  from  many  offences.  Christ  does  much  more 
than  remove  the  guilt  and  evils  consequent  on  the  sin  of  Adam. 

*  Instead  of  afxa^TrjgavToc:,  the  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  26,  the  Latin  and  Syriac  ver- 
sions read  afjiaPTTjjXaTog.  The  common  text  is  retamed  hy  most  editors,  even  by 
Lachmann. 

■j-  Tlie  words  all  men  are  expressed  in  v.  18, where  tins  clause  is  repeated.  "By 
the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  on  all  men  to  condenmation." 

26 


202  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

This  is  the  second  particular  in  which  the  work  of  Christ  dif- 
fers from  that  of  Adam. 

For  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation.  By  one 
does  not  here  mean  by  one  man,  but  by  one  offence,  as  is  ob- 
vious from  its  opposition  to  the  phrase  many  offences  in  the 
same  clause.  "  A  judgment  to  condemnation"  is  a  Hebraic 
or  Hellenistic  idiom,  for  a  condemnatory  judgment,  or  sentence 
of  condemnation.*  The  word  rendered  judgment  properly 
means  the  decision  or  sentence  of  a  judge,  and  is  here  to  be 
taken  in  its  usual  and  obvious  signification. 

It  is  then  plainly  stated  that '  a  sentence  of  condemnation  has 
passed  on  all  men  on  account  of  the  one  sin  of  Adam.'  This 
is  one  of  the  clauses  which  can  hardly  be  forced  into  the  mean- 
ing that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  merely  of  men's  being 
condemned,  because  it  was  the  means  of  their  being  led  into 
sin.  Here  again  we  have  a  mere  exegetical  question  to  decide; 
not  a  matter  of  theory  or  deduction,  but  simply  of  exposition. 
What  does  the  phrase  '  A  sentence  of  condemnation  by,  or  for 
one  offence,'  in  this  connexion,  mean  .-*  The  common  answer  to 
this  question  is,  it  means  that  the  one  offence  was  the  ground 
of  the  sentence.  This  answer,  for  the  following  reasons,  ap- 
pears to  be  correct.  1.  It  is  the  simple  and  obvious  meaning 
of  the  terms.  To  say  a  sentence  is  for  an  offence,  is,  in  or- 
dinary language,  to  say  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  offence;  and 
not  that  tiie  offence  is  the  cause  of  something  else,  which  is  the 
ground  of  the  sentence.  Who,  uninfluenced  by  theological 
prejudice,  would  imagine  that  the  apostle,  when  he  says  that 
condemnation  for  the  offence  of  one  man  has  passed  on  all  men, 
means  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  sins,  on  ac- 
count of  which  we  are  condemned  ?  The  preposition  (gx),  here 
translated  by,  expresses  properly  the  idea  of  the  origin  of  one 
thing  from  another;  and  is,  therefore,  used  to  indicate  almost 
any  relation  in  which  a  cause  may  stand  to  an  effect.  The  logi- 
cal character  of  this  relation  depends,  of  course,  on  the  nature 

•  Sec  1  Cor.  15:  45,  '  The  first  Adnin  was  made  {s'i^  ^^i^^y^v  ^wtfav)  to  a  living 
soul.'  '  The  last  Adam  to  a  quickening  spirit.'  Or  the  preposition  (sig)  may  ex- 
press the  grade  or  point  to  which  any  thing  reaches,  and  s/s  xarax^ifxa  be  equiva- 
lent to  E(g  TO  xaTax^i'vaffSai,  a  sentence  unto  condemnation;  a  decision  which 
went  to  the  extent  of  condemning.  So,  in  the  next  clause,  Si'g  (5ixa('wjxa  unto  jus- 
tification, a  sentence  by  whicli  men  arc  justified. — See  Waul,  p.  428. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  203 

of  the  subject  spoken  of.  In  the  phrases  "  faith  is  by  hearing," 
ch.  10:  17;  "by  this  craft  we  have  our  wealth,"  Acts  13:  25; 
"  our  sufficiency  is  of  God,"  2  Cor.  3:  5,  and  a  multitude  of  simi- 
lar cases,  the  general  idea  of  causation  is  expressed,  but  its  precise 
character  differs  according  to  the  nature  of  the  subject.  In  the 
•  former  of  these  examples  the  word  indicates  the  instrumental, 
in  the  latter  the  efficient  cause.  But  when  it  is  said  that  "  a 
man  is  not  justified  by  works,"  Gal.  2:16;  that  the  purpose  of 
election  "is  not  of  works,"  Rom.  9:  11;  that  our  salvation  is 
not  "  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,"  Tit.  3: 
5;  and  in  a  hundred  similar  examples,  the  preposition  expresses 
the  ground  or  reason.  We  are  not  elected  or  justified  or  saved 
on  account  of  our  works.  In  like  manner,  when  it  is  said  we 
are  condemned  hy.  or  for  the  offence  of  one,  and  that  we  are 
justified  for  the  righteousness  of  another,  the  meaning  obviously 
is,  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  offence  we  are  condemned,  and 
on  account  of  the  righteousness  we  are  justified.  If  it  is  true, 
therefore,  as  is  so  often  asserted,  that  the  apostle  here,  and 
throughout  this  passage,  states  the  fact  merely  that  the  offence 
of  Adam  has  led  to  our  condemnation,  without  explaining 
the  mode  in  which  it  has  produced  this  result,  it  must  be  be- 
cause language  cannot  express  the  idea.  The  truth  is,  however, 
that  when  he  says  "the  sentence  was  by  one  offence,"  he  ex- 
presses the  mode  of  our  condemnation  just  as  clearly  as  he  de- 
nies one  mode  of  justification  by  saying  it  "  is  not  by  works;" 
and  as  he  affirms  another  by  saying  it  is  "  by  the  righteousness 
of  Christ."  2.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  the  simple  and 
natural  meaning  of  the  words  in  themselves  considered,  but  is 
rendered  necessary  by  the  context.  We  have,  in  this  verse, 
the  idea  of  pardon  on  the  one  hand,  which  supposes  that  of  con- 
demnation on  the  other.  If  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  means, 
as  is  admitted,  that  we  are  pardoned  for  many  offences,  the 
former  must  mean  that  we  are  condemned  for  one.  3.  The 
whole  point  of  the  contrast  lies  in  this  very  idea.  The  anti- 
thesis in  this  verse  is  evidently  between  the  one  offence  and 
the  many  offences.  To  make  Paul  say  that  the  offence  of 
Adam  was  the  means  of  involving  us  in  a  multitude  of  crimes, 
from  all  of  which  Christ  saves  us,  is  to  make  the  evil  and 
the  benefit  exactly  tantamount.  '  Adam  leads  us  into  of- 
fences from  which  Christ  delivers  us.'     Here  is  no  contrast  and 


204  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

no  superiority.  Paul,  however,  evidently  means  to  assert  that 
the  evil  from  which  Christ  saves  us,  is  far  greater  than  that 
which  Adam  has  hrought  upon  us.  According  to  the  simple 
and  natural  interpretation  of  the  verse,  this  idea  is  retained, 
'  Adam  brought  the  condemnation  of  one  offence  only:  Christ 
saves  us  from  that  of  many.''  4.  Add  to  these  considerations 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  corresponding  clauses  in  the  other 
verses,  especially  in  v.  19,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  the 
whole  passage,  so  often  referred  to,  and  it  seems  scarcely  pos- 
sible to  resist  the  evidence  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  pas- 
sage. 5,  This  interpretation  is  so  clearly  the  correct  one,  that 
it  is  conceded  by  commentators  and  theologians  of  every  shade 
of  doctrine.*  It  is  plainly  involved  in  Prof.  Stuart's  transla- 
tion of  the  passage;  and  on  p.  226,  he  says,  "The  condemna- 
tion which  comes  upon  us  through  Adam,  has  respect  only  to 
one  offence."  In  his  comment  on  v.  15,  quoted  above,  he  freely 
admits  that  penal  evils  are  inflicted  on  all  men  on  account  of 
Adam,  antecedently  to  any  concurrence  of  their  own ;  and  this 
verse,  he  says,  "  repeats  the  same  sentiment,  but  in  a  more  spe- 
cific manner."  Every  thing  is  thus  admitted  which  any  advo- 
cate of  the  doctrine  of  imputation  can  wish. 

The  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  iinlo  justification,  that 
is,  the  free  gift  is  justification.  The  construction  of  this  clause 
is  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding  one,  and  is  to  be  explained 
in  the  same  way.  As,  however,  the  logical  relation  of  a  sentence 
to  an  offence,  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  pai'don  to  transgressions, 

*  "  Justly  indeed  on  account  of  one  offence  many  are  subjected  to  punishment ; 
but  by  the  divine  grace  many  are  freed  from  the  punislnncnt  of  numy  offences,  and 
rendered  happy." — Koppe.  His  own  words  are,  Jure  quidem  unius  delicti  causa 
pocnas  subeunt  multi ;  ex  gratia  vero  divina  a  multonmi  dclictorum  poenis  libcran- 
tur  beanturque  multi. 

KaTaxfi,aa  setzt  also  nicht  nothwendig  eigene  Verschuldung  voraus,  so  wic 
das  Gegentheil  (Sixaiwfjia  nicht  cigcnc  ^ixaiotfuvr)  voraussetzt.  Urn  eincr  einzigen 
Siinde  willrn  wurden  Alio  dazu  vcrurthcilt,  den  SavaTOf,  v.  15,  17,  zu  leiden. — 
Flatt.  That  is,  "  Condemnation  does  not  necessarily  presuppose  personal  trans- 
gression, any  more  than  the  opposite,  justification,  presupposes  j)ersonal  righteous- 
ness.    On  account  of  one  single  sin  all  are  condemned  to  suffer  death." 

Damnatio,  qua  propter  Adamum  tenemur,  unius  peccati  causa  damnatio  est. 
"  The  condemnation  which  wo  suffer  on  account  of  Adam,  is  a  condenmation  on 
account  of  one  sin." — Stohh,  Opuscula,  Vol.  I.  p.  252.  "For  the  judgment  (Gr. 
sentence)  was  by  one  sin  to  condenmation,  we  being  all  sentenced  to  death  on  ac- 
count of  Adam's  sin." — Whithv. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  205 

the  preposition  (k)  cannot  express  precisely  the  same  idea  here 
as  in  the  foregoing  clause.  Though  it  is  proper  to  say  we  are 
condemned  on  account  of  our  offences,  we  cannot  say  we  are 
pardoned  or  justified  o??  account  of  them  in  precisely  the  same 
sense.  Our  translators  render  the  word,  therefore,  in  the  first 
instance  b^/,  and  in  the  second  of  Prof.  Stuart  renders  it 
accurately,  "The  free  gift  (pardon)  is  of  many  offences;"  i.  e. 
the  free  gift  which  we  receive,  is  the  pardon  of  many  offences. 
Or,  as  he  also  expresses  it,  "  The  justification  effected  hy  Clirist, 
has  respect  to  many  offences."  The  sentiment  of  the  verse 
then  is,  'While,  on  account  of  Adam,  we  suffer  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  pronounced  on  one  sin,  we  arc  freed  through 
Christ  from  the  condemnation  of  many.' 

(17)  Fo)' if  by  one  man^s  offence  death  reigned  by  one; 
much  more,  &c.     It  is  doubtful  whether  this  verse  is  a  mere 
amplification  of  the  idea  of  v.  15,  which,  in  import  and  structure, 
it  so  much  resembles;  or  whether  the  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the 
last  clause  reigning  in  life;  so  that  the  point  of  the  difference 
between  Adam  and  Christ,  as  here  indicated,  is,  Christ  not  only 
delivers  from  death,  but  bestows  eternal  life;  or,  finally,  whether 
the  emphasis  is  to  be  laid  on  tlie  word  receive.     The  idea  would 
then  be,  '  if  we  are  thus  subject  to  death  for  an  offence,  in  which 
we  had  no  personal  concern,  how  much  more  shall  we  be  saved 
by  a  righteousness  which  we  voluntarily  embrace.'*     The  de- 
cision of  these  questions  is  not  at  all  material  to  the  general 
interpretation  of  the  passage.     Both  of  the  ideas  contained   in 
the  two  latter  views  of  the  verse  are  probably  to  be  included. 
For  if  by  one  man''s  offence]  death  reigned  by  one.     That 
is,  if  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one  man  many  are  subject  to 
death.     This  clause  is  a  repetition,  in  nearly  the  same  words,  of 
the  second  clause  of  v.  15,  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many 
he  dead,  and  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way.     The  dative 

*  Ut  raiseria  peccati  hacrcditate  potiaris,  satis  est  esse  hominem,  residet  cnim  in 
came  et  sanguine :  ut  Christi  justitia  fruaris,  fidelem  esse  necessarium  est,  quia  fide 
acquiritur  ejus  consortium. — Calvin. 

•j-  Instead  of  the  reading  tu  tou  svog  *apa'7rTW,u-aTi,  A.  F.  G.  have  h  h\-,  and 
D.  E.  hi  TUj  hi.  The  common  reading,  however,  is  generally  retained,  and  is  con- 
firmed by  a  comparison  with  v.  15,  where  this  precise  form  of  expression  also  oc- 
curs.    Laclimann  reads  svl,  but  admits  svog  to  be  of  equal  authority. 


206  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

(■Ka^urrrCjixaTi)  has  the  same  force  here  which  it  has  there.     See 
the  remarks  on  that  verse. 

Much  more  Ihei/  ivhich  receive  ahinidance  of  grace  and 
the  gift  of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus 
Christ.     The  phrase  abundance  of  grace  is  explained  by  the 
following  one,  gift  of  righteousness;  '  grace  even  the  gift  of 
righteousness;'  which  is  the  gift  or  favour  of  which  the  apostle 
is  speaking  throughout  the  whole  passage.     That  righteousness 
here  does  not  mean  holiness,  is  evident  from  the  constant  use  of 
the  word  by  Paul  in  a  different  sense  in  this  epistle;  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  pardon,  justification,  justifying  righteousness,  not 
sanctification,  that  Paul  in  the  context  represents,  as  the  blessing 
received  from  Christ;  and  because  it  is  in  this  verse  opposed  to 
the  reigning  of  death,  or  state  of  condemnation  on  account  of 
the  offence  of  Adam.     Prof   Stuart,  therefore,  in  accordance 
with  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  very  correctly  states 
the  sentiment  of  the  verse  thus:  "For  if  all  are  in  a   stat6''of 
condemnation  by  reason  of  the  offence  of  one,  much  more  shall 
those  towards  whom  abundance  of  mercy  and  pardoning  grace 
are  shown,  be  redeemed  from  a  state  of  condemation,  and  ad- 
vanced to  a  state  of  happiness."     The  general  sentiment  of  the 
verse  is  thus  correctly  exhibited,  but  some  of  the  more  prominent 
terms  do  not  appear  to  have  their  full  force  assigned  to  them. 
They  which  receive  the  abundant  grace  expresses  more  than 
that  this  grace  is  manifested  to  them;  all  such  do  not  reign  in 
life.     This  phrase  evidently  implies  the  voluntary  reception  of 
the  offered  boon.      The  gift  of  righteousness  too,  is  something 
more  than  pardoning  grace.     It  is  that  which  is  ex])rcssed  in 
V.  15  by  the  free  gift;  and   in  v.  16   by  the  free  gift  unto 
justif  cation.     It  is,  therefore,  tlie  gift  of  justification;  or  what 
is  but  another  method  of  stating  the  same  idea,  it  is  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  by  which  we  are  justified,  since  the  gift  of 
justification  includes  the  gift  of  Christ's  righteousness.     The 
meaning  of  the  verse  consequently  is,  '  If  on  account  of  the 
offence  of  one  man  we  are  condemned,  much  more  shall  those 
who  receive  the  righteousness  graciously  offered  to  them  in  the 
gospel,  not  only  be  delivered  from  condemnation,  but  also  reign 
in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ;'  that  is,  be  gloriously  exalted  in 
the  participation  of  that  life  of  holiness  and  communion  with 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  207 

God,  which  is  the  end  of  our  being,  and  of  which  Christ  alone 
is  the  author. 

By  one,  Jesus  Christ.  As  it  was  by  one  man,  antecedently  to 
any  concurrence  of  our  own,  that  we  were  brought  into  a  state 
of  condemnation,  so  it  is  by  one  man,  without  any  merit  of  our 
own,  that  we  are  delivered  from  this  state.  If  the  one  event 
has  happened,  much  more  may  we  expect  the  other  to  occur.  If 
we  are  thus  involved  in  the  condemnation  of  a  sin  in  which  we 
had  no  personal  concern,  much  more  shall  we,  who  voluntarily 
receive  the  gift  of  righteousness,  be  not  only  saved  from  the 
consequences  of  the  fall,  but  be  made  partakers  of  eternal  life. 

(18)  Therefore,  as  ly  the  offence  q/"o?2e,  judgment  came  on 
all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so,  &c.  The  words  rendered 
there/ore  mark  the  resumption  of  the  comparison  commenced 
in  V.  12.  The  carrying  out  of  this  comparison  was  interrupted, 
■  in  the  first  place,  to  prove,  in  vs.  13,  14,  the  position  assumed  in 
V.  12,  that  all  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam^  and,  in  the  second  place,  to  limit  and  explain  the  analogy 
asserted  to  exist  between  Christ  and  Adam,  at  the  close  of  v. 
14.  This  is  done  in  vs.  15,  16,  17.  Having  thus  fortified  and 
explained  his  meaning,  the  apostle  now  states  the  case  in  full. 
The  word  therefore,  at  the  beginning  of  v.  12,  marks  an  infer- 
ence from  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  epistle;  the  corresponding 
words  here  are  also  strictly  inferential.  It  had  been  proved 
that  we  are  justified  by  the  rigbteousness  of  one  man,  and  it 
had  also  been  proved  that  we  are  under  condemnation  for  the 
offence  of  one.  Therefore  as  we  are  condemned,  even  so  are 
we  justified. 

It  will  be  remarked,  from  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
printed,  that  the  worA^  judgment  came,  in  the  first  clause  of  this 
verse,  and  the  free  gift  came,  in  the  second,  have  nothing  to 
answer  to  them  in  the  original.  That  they  are  correctly  and 
necessarily  supplied,  is  obvious  from  a  reference  to  v.  16,  where 
these  elliptical  phrases  occur  in  full. 

The  construction  in  these  clauses,  the  judgment  was  to 
condemnation,  and  the  free  gift  was  unto  justification  of 
life,  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  second  clause  of  v.  16,  and  is  to  be 
explained  in  the  same  manner.  '  The  sentence  was  condemna- 
tion,' i.  e.  condemnatory.  This  came  upon  all  men  by  the 
offence  of  one;  that  is,  on  that  account  they  were  condemned. 


208  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

*  The  free  gift  was  justificcation  of  life.'  This  also  comes  on  all 
by  the  righteousness  of  one;  that  is,  on  this  ground  they  are 
justified.  The  expression  juslification  of  life,  means  that 
justification  wliich  is  connected  with  eternal  life,  or  of  which 
that  life  is  the  consequence. 

Besides  the  commmon  interpretation  of  this  verse,  there  are 
two  others,  either  of  which  may  be  adopted  without  materially 
altering  the  sense.  I.  Instead  of  saying  "  by  the  ofience  of 
one,"  it  may  be  rendered  by  one  offence;  and  instead  of  "  by 
the  righteousness  of  one,"  by  one  7'ighteousness.  The  common 
interpretation,  however,  seems  preferable,  1.  Because  the  com- 
parison is  between  Christ  and  Adam,  rather  than  between  the 
sin  of  the  one  and  the  righteousness  of  the  other.  2.  Because 
the  expression  one  7'ighteon.sness  is  awkward  and  unusual. 
3.  Because  the  natural  opposition  between  the  one  and  all  is 
otherwise  lost.  "  It  is  by  the  offence  of  one  that  all  are  con- 
demned." II.  The  other  interpretation  requires  the  word 
rendered  offence  to  be  rendered  metonymically  fall,  or  con- 
demnation; and  that  rendered  righteousness  to  be  translated 
justification.  The  verse  would  then  stand,  '  For  as  by  the 
condemnation  of  one,  all  are  condemned;  even  so  by  the  justi- 
fication of  one,  all  are  justified.'  See  Stori-'s  Opuscula,  Vol.  I. 
p.  146.  The  only  advantage  gained  by  this  interpretation,  is, 
that  the  connexion  between  this  verse  and  the  following  be- 
comes rather  more  obvious.  '  We  share  in  the  condemnation 
of  Adam,  for  by  his  disobedience  we  are  constituted  sinners. 
And  we  share  in  the  justification  of  Christ,  because  by  his 
obedience  we  are  constituted  righteous.'  The  apparent  tau- 
tology in  these  verses  is  thus  avoided.  Still  as  the  ordinary 
signification  of  the  words  in  question  is  offence  and  righteous- 
ness ;  and  as  'condemnation  of  Adam,'  and  'justification  of 
Christ,'  are  not  the  ordinary  modes  in  which  the  apostle  ex- 
presses himself,  and  are  not  so  consistent  with  the  language  of 
the  preceding  verses,  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for 
departing  from  the  translation  given  in  our  common  version. 

There  are  two  im])ortant  questions  yet  to  be  considered  in 
reference  to  this  verse.  Tlic  first  is,  What  is  the  force  of  the 
phrase  t)ij  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  on  all  men  to 
condevi nation  ?  There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
expression    '"judgment  came  on   all  to  condemnation;"   it  is 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  209 

admitted  to  mean,  what  alone  it  can  mean,  that  all  are  con- 
demned; see  above  on  v.  16,     But  the  question  is,  What  is  the 
relation  between  the  offence  of  Adam  and  the  condemnation  of 
men  ?   Or,  what  is  the  force  of  the  words  hy  the  offence  of  one! 
According  to  the  common  and,  as  it  is  believed,  the  only  correct 
view  of  the  passage,  these  words  state  that  the  offence  of  Adam 
was  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  men,  and  not  merely 
the  occasion  of  it.     The  preposition  which  is  rendered  hy  (5ia) 
is  not  the  same  as  that  which  is  so  translated  in  v.  16.     It  is 
readily  admitted  that  this  preposition  has,  with  the  genitive,  the 
meaning  hy  7neans  of,  and  with  the  accusative,  on  account  of. 
With  the  former  case   it  expresses  the   means  by  which  any 
thing  is  done,  and,  with  the  latter,  the  ground  or  reason  for 
which  it  is  done.     As  the  genitive  is  used  here  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse,  it  may  be  argued  that  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say 
that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  our  condemnation, 
but  that  it  was  the  occasion  of  it  merely;  or,  in  general  terms,, 
the  cause  of  it,  without  indicating  the  nature  of  that  cause. 
This  is  by  far  the  most  plausible  argument  against  the  ordinary 
interpretation  of  the  passage  as  given  above,  though  it  is  not 
noticed  or  urged  by  Prof.  Stuart.     It  may,  however,  be  satis- 
factorily answered.     While  it  is  admitted  that  the  preposition 
in  question  with  the  genitive,  properly  indicates  the  means  to 
an  end,  yet,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  means  may  be 
the  ground  or  reason  on  which  any  thing  is  done.     Thus,  in  v. 
12  of  this  chapter,  Paul  says  "  death  was  hy  sin,"  i.  e.  sin  was  the 
means  or  cause  of  death,  yet  it  was  such  by  being  the  grouad 
or  reason  of  its  infliction.     The  sense,  therefore,  is  accurately- 
expressed  by  saying  '^  death  was  on  account  of  sin;'  and  the  phrase 
is  so  rendered  by  Prof.  Stuart  on  p.  207.     In  ch.  3:  24  we  are 
said  to  be  justified  "  through  the  redemption"  of  Christ,  i.  e.  hy 
means  of  it;  yet  here  the  means  is  of  the  nature  of  the  ground 
or  reason  of  our  justification.     The  same  remark  may  be  made 
in  reference  to  the  frequent  phrases  "  through  his  blood,"  Eph. 
1:  7.  Col.  1:  20,  &c.;  "  through  his   death,"  Rom.  5:  10.   Col. 
1:  22;  "by  the  cross,"  Eph.  2:  16,  &c.;  "by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself,"  Heb.  9:  26;   "through,  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus,"  Heb.  10:  10;  in  all  these,  and  a  multitude  of  similar 
cases,  the  preposition  in  question  retains  its  appropriate  force 
with  the  genitive,  as  indicating  the  means,  and  yet  in  all  of  them 

27 


210  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

the  means  is  the  ground  or  reason.     Thus  also,  in  this  imme- 
diate connexion,  we  have  the  expressions  "  hy  the  righteous- 
ness of  one"  all  are  justified;   and  "  Z>^  the  obedience  of  one 
shall  many  be  made  righteous."     We  have,  therefore,  in  this 
single  passage  no  less  than  three  cases,  vs.  12,  18,  19,  in  which 
this  preposition  with  the  genitive  indicates  such  a  means  to  an 
end,  as  the  ground  or  reason  on  account  of  which  something  is 
given  or  performed.     All  this  is  surely  sufficient  to  prove  that 
it  may,  in  the  case  before  us,  express  the  ground  why  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  has  passed  on  all  men.     That  such,  in 
this  connexion,  must  be  its  meaning,  appears,  1.  From  the  na- 
ture of  the  subject  spoken  of.     To  say  that  one  man  has  been 
corrupted  by  another,  may  indeed  express  very  generally  that 
one  was  the  cause  of  the  corruption  of  the  other,  without  giving 
any  information  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  result  was  secured. 
But  to  say  that  a  man  was  justified  by  means  of  a  good  action, 
or  that  he  was  condemned  by  means  of  a  bad  one;  or  plainer 
still,  in  Paul's  own  language,  that  a  condemnatory  sentence 
came  upon  him  by  means  of  that  action;  according  to  all  com- 
mon rules  of  interpretation,  naturally  means  that  such  action 
was  the  reason  of  the  sentence.     2.  From  the  antithesis.     If 
the  phrase  "  by  the  righteousness  of  one  all  are  justified  "  means, 
as  is  admitted,  that  that  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  our  jus- 
tification; the  opposite  clause,  "by  the  offence  of  one  all  are 
condemned,"  must  have  a  similar  meaning.     3.  The  point  of 
the  comparison,  as  frequently  remarked  before,  lies  in  this  very 
idea.     The  fact  that  Adam's  sin  was  the  occasion  of  our  sin- 
ning, and  thus  incurring  the  divine  disj)leasure,  is  no  illustra- 
tion of  the  fact  that  Christ's  righteousness,  and   not  our  own 
merit,  is  the  ground  of  our  acceptance.     There  would  be  some 
plausibility  in  this  interpretation,  if  it  were  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  the  occasion  of  our  be- 
coming holy,  and  that  on  the  ground  of  this  personal  holiness 
we  are  justified.     But  thfs  not  being  the  case,  the  interpretation 
in  question  cannot  be  adopted  in  consistency  with  the  design  of 
the  apostle,  or  the  common  rules  of  exposition.    4.  This  clause  is 
nearly  identical  with  the  corresponding  one  of  v.  16,  "  the  judg- 
ment was  by  one  (offence)  to  condemnation."     But  that  clause, 
as  shown  above,  is  made,  almost  by  common  consent,  to  mean 
that  the  olfence  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnatory  sentence. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  211 

Such,  therefore,  must  be  the  meanhig  of  the  apostle  in  this 
verse;  compare  also  vs.  15,  17,  19. 

The  second  question  of  importance  respecting  this  verse,  is, 
whether  the  all  men  of  the  second  clause  is  co-extensive  with 
the  all  men  of  the  first?  Are  the  all  who  are  justified  for  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  the  all  who  are  condemned  for  the  sin 
of  Adam?  In  regard  to  this  point,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  the 
first  place,  that  no  inference  can  be  fairly  drawn  in  favour  of  an 
affirmative  answer  to  this  question,  from  the  mere  universality 
of  the  expression.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers  of 
the  scriptures  than  that  such  universal  terms  are  to  be  limited 
by  the  nature  of  the  subject  or  the  context.  Thus,  John  3:  24, 
it  is  said  of  Christ,  "  all  men  come  to  him;"  John  12:  32,  Christ 
says  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  Thus 
the  expressions  "  all  the  world  should  be  taxed,"  "  all  Judea," 
"  all  Jerusalem,'*  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  limited. 
In  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  words  all,  all  things,  mean  the  all 
spoken  of  in  the  context,  and  not  all  without  exception;  see 
Eph.  1:  10.  Col.  1:  20.  1  Cor.  15:  22,  51.  2  Cor.  5:  14,  &c.  &c. 
2.  This  limitation  is  always  implied  when  the  scriptures  else- 
where vSpeak  of  a  necessary  condition  connected  with  the  bless- 
ing to  which  all  are  said  to  attain.  It  is  every  where  taught 
that  faith  is  necessary  to  justification;  and,  therefore,  when  it  is 
said  "  all  are  justified,"  it  must  mean  all  believers.  "  By  him," 
says  this  apostle,  "  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things, 
&c."  Acts  13:  39.  3.  As  if  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  mis- 
take, Paul,  in  V.  17,  says  it  is  those  who  "  receive  the  gift  of 
righteousness"  that  reign  in  life,  4.  Even  the  all  men,  in  the 
first  clause,  must  be  limited  to  those  descended  from  Adam  "  by 
ordinary  generation."  It  is  not  absolutely  all.  The  man  Christ 
Jesus  must  be  excepted.  The  plain  meaning  is,  all  connected 
with  Adam,  and  all  connected  with  Christ.  5.  A  reference  to 
the  similar  passage  in  1  Cor,  15:  22,  confirms  this  interpretation, 
"  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive;" 
that  is,  shall  be  made  partakers  of  a  glorious  resurrection  and 
of  eternal  life.  Thus  the  original  word  (^woTroni^VovTai)  and  the 
context  require  the  latter  clause  of  that  verse  to  be  understood. 
The  all  there  intended  are  immediately  called  "  they  that  are 
Christ's,"  v.  23,  i.  e.  all  connected  with  him,  and  not  numerically 


212  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

the  all  that  die  in  Adam.*  G.  This  interpretation  is  necessar)', 
because  it  is  impossible,  with  any  regard  to  scriptural  usage 
or  truth,  to  carry  the  opposite  interpretation  through.  In  this 
whole  passage  there  are  two  classes  of  persons  spoken  of,  those 
connected  with  Adam  and  those  connected  with  Christ.  Of  the 
former,  it  is  said  "  they  die,"  v.  15;  "  they  are  condemned,"  vs. 
16,  18;  "they  are  made  sinners,"  v.  19,  by  the  offence  of  one 
man.  Of  the  latter  it  is  said,  that  to  them  "  the  grace  of  God 
and  the  gift  by  grace  hath  abounded,"  v.  15;  "that  they  are 
freely  justified  from  many  offences,"  vs.  16,  18;  '•'  that  they  shall 
reign  in  life  through  Christ  Jesus,"  v.  17;  "  that  they  are  re- 
garded and  treated  as  righteous,"  v.  19.  If  these  things  can  be 
said  of  all  men,  of  impenitent  sinners  and  hardened  reprobates, 
what  remains  to  be  said  of  the  people  of  God  ?  It  is  not  possible 
so  to  eviscerate  these  declarations  as  to  make  them  contain 
nothing  more  than  that  the  chance  of  salvation  is  offered  to  all 
men.  To  say  that  a  man  is  justified,  is  not  to  say  that  he  has 
the  opportunity  of  justifying  himself;  and  to  say  that  a  man 
shall  reign  in  life,  is  not  to  vsay  he  may  possibly  be  saved.  Who 
ever  announces  to  a  congregation  of  sinners,  that  they  are  all 
justified — they  are  all  constituted  righteous — they  all  have  the 
justification  of  life  ?  The  interpretation  which  requires  all  these 
strong  and  plain  declarations  to  be  explained  in  a  sense  Avhich 
they  confessedly  have  no  where  else  in  the  bible,  and  which 
makes  them  mean  hardly  any  thing  at  all,  is  at  variance  witit 
every  sound  principle  of  construction.  It  is  not  witliin  the 
bounds  of  possibility  that"  the  many  (i.e.  all)  shall  be  constituted 
righteous;"  that  is,  as  it  is  correctly  explained  by  Prof.  Stuart, 
"justified,  pardoned,  accepted  and  treated  as  righteous,"  means 
nothing  more  than  that  acceptance  is  proffered  to  all  men, 
Paul's  doctrine,  therefore,  is,  '  As  on  account  of  the  offence  of 
Adam,  all  connected  with  him  are  condemned;  so  on  account  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  all  connected  witli  him  have  the 
justification  of  life.' 

(19)   For  as  by  one  man^s  disobedience  inuny  icere  made 

*  Such  is  th-e  comiaoii  and,  no  doubt,  the  corroct  intorprotation  of  the  passage, 
1  Cor.  15:  22.  It  is  so  understood  by  Prof.  fStuart,  wlio,  on  p.  524  of  his  {Com- 
mentary on  the  Romans,  incidentally  refers  to  it,  and  remarks,  that  Paul  is  there 
speaking  "of  the  resurrection  of  Christians  only." 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  213 

sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  7nade 
righteous.  This  verse  presents  the  doctrine  of  the  preceding 
one  in  a  somewhat  different  form.  As  in  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication, there  are  the  two  ideas  of  the  ascription  of  righteousness, 
and  treating  as  righteous;  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  the 
ascription  of  guilt  (legal  responsibility),  and  the  treating  all  men 
as  guilty;  so  either  of  these  ideas  is  frequently  presented  more 
prominently  than  the  other.  In  v.  18  it  is  the  latter,  in  each 
case,  which  is  made  most  conspicuous,  and  in  v.  19,  the  fomier. 
In  V.  18  it  is  our  being  treated  as  sinners  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  our  being  treated  as  righteous  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  that  is  most  prominently  presented.  In  v.  19,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  our  being  regarded  as  sinners  for  the  disobe- 
dience of  Adam,  and  our  being  regarded  as  righteous  for  the 
obedience  of  Christ,  that  are  rendered  most  conspicuous.  Hence, 
Paul  begins  this  verse  with  for.  '  We  are  treated  as  sinners 
for  the  offence  of  Adam,  for  we  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  his 
account,  &c.  &c.'  Though  the  one  idea  seems  thus  to  be  the 
more  prominent  in  v.  18,  and  the  other  in  v.  19,  yet  it  is  only 
a  greater  degree  of  prominency  to  the  one,  and  not  the  exclusion 
of  the  other,  that  is  in  either  case  intended. 

By  one  man's  disobedience.  The  disobedience  here  is  evi- 
dently the  first  transgression  of  Adam,  spoken  of  in  v.  16, 
as  the  one  offence.  The  obedience  of  Christ  here  stands  for 
all  his  work  in  satisfying  the  demands  of  the  law;  his  obedience 
unto,  and  in  death;  that  by  which  the  law  was  magnified  and 
rendered  honourable,  as  well  as  satisfied.  From  its  opposition 
to  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  his  obedience,  strictly  speaking, 
rather  than  his  sufferings,  seems  to  be  the  prominent  idea.*  The 
words  the  many  in  both  clauses  of  this  verse,  are  obviously 
equivalent  to  the  all  of  the  corresponding  clauses  of  v.  18,  and 
are  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner. 

With  regard  to  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  we  meet  again 


*  "  Paulns  untcrscheidet  in  dem  Werke  Christi  dicse  beiden  Momente,  das 
Thun  und  das  Leiden." — Nbander.  '  Paul  distinguisiies,  in  the  work  of  Christ, 
these  two  elements,  doing  and  suffering.'  Geschichte  der  Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  543. 
In  the  paragraph  which  follows  this  statement,  Neander  presents  the  old  distinction 
between  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ,  very  nearly  in  its  usual  form. 
On  p.  546,  he  says,  "  Dies  heilige  Leben  Christi  will  Gott  als  That  der  ganzen 
Menschheit  betrachten."     *  God  regards  the  holy  life  of  Christ  as  the  act  of  all  men.' 


214  ROMANS  5:  12— 21. 

the  three  interpretations  to  which  reference  has  so  frequently 
been  made.  I.  That  the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  the  occa- 
sion of  men's  becoming  sinners.  II.  That  through  that  disobe- 
dience all  men  were  corrupted,  that  is,  that  they  have  derived 
a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  which  is  the  immediate  ground  of 
their  suffering  penal  evils.  III.  That  it  is  on  account  of  his 
disobedience  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners.  With 
increasing  clearness  it  may  be  made  to  appear  that  here,  as  else- 
where throughout  the  passage,  the  last  is  the  apostle's  doctrine. 

1.  It  is  in  accordance  with  one  of  the  most  familiar  of  scrip- 
tural usages,  that  the  w^ords  to  make  sinners*  are  interpreted 
as  meaning,  to  regard  and  treat  as  such.  Thus,  to  make  clean, 
to  make  unclean,  to  Tnake  righteous,  to  m.ake  guilty,  are  the 
constant  scriptural  expressions  for  regarding  and  treating 
as  clean,  unclean,  righteous,  or  unrighteous;  see  on  v.  12. 

2.  The  expressions  to  make  sin,  and  to  make  righteousness, 
occurring  in  a  corresponding  sense,  illustrate  and  confirin  this 
interpretation.  Thus  in  2  Cor.  5:  21,  Christ  is  said  to  be 
"made  sin,"  i.  e.  regarded  and  treated  as  a  sinner,  "that  we 
might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  i.  e.  that  we 
might  be  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God, 
on  his  account.t  3.  The  antithesis  is  here  so  plain  as  to  be  of 
itself  decisive.  "To  be  made  righteous"  is,  according  to  Prof. 
Stuart,  "  to  be  justified,  pardoned,  regarded  and  treated  as 
righteous."  With  what  show  of  consistency  then  can  it  be 
denied  that  "  to  be  made  sinners,"  in  the  opposite  clause,  means 
to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners.  If  one  part  of  the  verse 
speaks  of  justification,  the  other  must  speak  of  condemnation. 
4.  As  so  often  before  remarked,  the  analogy  between  the   case 

*  Tliis  intprpri'tation,  wliicli  is  domaiidod  both  liy  tlic  usage  of  the  terms  em- 
ployed (see  on  IJom.  8:  4),  and  tlic  antitlicsis  in  tliis  verse,  is  now  almost  univer- 
sally adojded  by  all  classes  of  commentators. — See  Wahl's  Lexicon  under  the  word 

■}•  The  word  (xaTttfTa&yi'J'av)  rendered  iveve  made,  in  its  p-onnd  form  signifies 
to  place,  and  is  often  equivalent  very  nearly  with  the  simple  verb  to  be.  James 
4:  4,  "Whosoever  therefore  will  be  the  friend  of  the  world,  is  an  enemy  of  God;" 
see  also  3:6.  It  also  signifies  to  constitJite  in  the  sense  of  appoiiiting  to  office, 
Luke  12:  14.  Acts  7:  10,  &c.  &c.;  or  in  that  oi making  a  person  or  tfung  some- 
thing. In  this  case  it  may  be  rendered  simply,  they  are.  'By  one  man's  disobe- 
dience many  are  sinners,  or  are  constituted  such,  or  are  made  such.'  The  idea  is 
the  same. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  215 

of  Adam  and  Christ  requires  this  interpretation.  If  the  first 
clause  means  either  that  the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  the 
occasion  of  our  committing  sin,  or  that  it  was  the  cause  of 
our  becoming  inherently  corrupt,  and  on  the  ground  of  these 
sins,  or  of  this  corruption,  being  condemned;  then  must  the  other 
clause  mean  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  the  cause  of  our 
becoming  holy,  or  performing  good  works  on  the  ground  of 
which  we  are  justified.  But  this  confessedly  is  not  the  mean- 
ing of  the  apostle.  If  then  the  same  words,  in  the  same  con- 
nexion, and  the  same  grammatical  construction  must  have  the 
same  meaning,  the  interpretation  given  above  must  be  correct. 
5.  The  design  of  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  great  doctrine  of 
the  gospel,  that  men,  although  in  themselves  ungodly,  are  re 
garded  and  treated  as  righteous  for  Christ's  sake,  demands  this 
interpretation.  6.  This  view  of  the  passage  so  obviously  re- 
quired by  the  usage  of  the  words  and  the  context,  is,  as  remarked 
above  on  v.  16,  adopted  by  commentators  of  every  class  of 
theological  opinion.  See  the  passages  there  quoted.  "  The 
many  are  here  again  all,  who,  from  the  opposition  to  the  one, 
are  in  this  place,  as  in  v,  15,  denominated  from  their  great 
number.  These  have  without  exception  become  sinners  {a\ua9- 
TuXoi  xoLTSdTa'^'^ffav),  not  in  reference  to  their  own  inward  corrup- 
tion, of  which  PAul  is  not  here  speaking,  but  in  reference  to 
their  guilt  (Strafwiirdigkeit)  and  actual  punishment  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin."*  Even  Flatt,  whose  general  view  of  the 
passage  would  lead  to  a  different  interpretation,  gives,  as  a  cor- 
rect exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  "  As  on  account 
of  the  disobedience  of  one  the  many  are  treated  as  sinners,  so 
on  account  of  the  obedience  of  one  shallthe  many  be  treated  as 
righteous."  Storr  also  renders  the  first  clause,  "  They  were 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;"  this,  he  says,  must  be  its 
meaning  from  its  opposition  to  the  words  "  were  constituted 
righteous,"  which  obviously  express  the  idea  of  justification,  and 
also  from  the  use  of  the  word  condemnation  in  the  corresponding 
clause  of  V.  18.  These  writers  are  referred  to  in  preference  to 
Calvinistic  commentators,  to  show  how  entirely  destitute  of 
foundation  is  the  reproach,  that  the  interpretation  given  above 
is  the  result  of  theological  prejudice. 

*  Zacuakiae  Biblische  Thcologie,  Vol,  II.  p.  388. 


216  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

It  will  be  observed  that  no  part  of  the  argument  in  favour  of 
this  view  of  the  passage,  and  of  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches, 
rests  on  the  mere  force  of  the  expression  "  hy  the  offence  of 
one;"  or  on  the  assumption  that  the  word  rendered  loere  made 
expresses  the  idea  of  imputation;  and,  therefore,  no  part  of  it 
is  answered  by  any  remarks  directed  to  these  points.  Because 
it  is  true,  and  acknowledged,  that  the  declaration  "  all  men  are 
treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  the  sin  of  one  man"  includes 
the  idea  of  imputation,  does  it  hence  follow  that  the  word  treat 
means  to  impute?  And  what  answer  is  it  to  the  argument 
from  such  a  declaration,  to  show  that  such  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  word  ?  Yet  we  see  commentators  la3'ing  stress  upon  the 
fact  that  the  word  rendered  ivere  made  in  this  clause  is  never 
used  "  to  express  the  idea  of  imputing  that  to  one  which  be- 
longs to  another.'^*'  No  one  ever  supposed  that  it  was  so  used. 
The  simple  question  is,  what  is  the  idea  expressed  by  the  whole 
clause  ?  If  to  coistitute  righteous  means  to  justify,  pardon, 
regard  and  treat  as  righteous,  as  Prof.  Stuart  admits  it  to  be  the 
case,  does  not  to  constitute  siiuiers  mean  to  condemn,  to 
punish,  to  regard  and  treat  as  sinners?  An  affirmative  answer 
to  this  question  it  must  be  very  difficult  for  any  man  to  with- 
hold.    Yet  this  is  all  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  requires. 

The  meaning  then  of  the  whole  passage  is  this:  by  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  or  men  were  brought  to  stand  in 
the  relation  of  sinners  to  God;  death,  consequently  passed  on 
all,  because  for  the  offence  of  that  one  man,  they  were  all  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sinners.  That  this  is  really  the  case  is 
plain;  because  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  a  law  cannot  be 
more  extensive  than  its  violation;  and  consequently  if  all  are 
-subject  to  penal  evils,  all  are  regarded  as  sinners  in  the  sight  of 
■God.  This  universality  in  the  infliction  of  penal  evil  cannot 
be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  since  men  were  subject  to  such  evil  before  that  law  was 
given;  nor  yet  on  account  of  the  violation  of  the  more  general 
law  written  on  the  heart,  since  ei-e/i  they  are  subject  to  this 
evil  whf)  have  never  personally  sinned  at  all.  We  must  con- 
■clude,  therefore,  that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

*  See  Phof.  Stcaht,  p.  237,  and  Mr.  BAHj(i.s,  p.  I'il. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  217 

He  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  The  cases,  however,  are 
not  entirely  analogous;  for  if  it  is  consistent  with  the  divine 
character,  that  we  should  suffer  for  what  Adam  did,  how  much 
more  may  we  expect  to  be  made  happy  for  what  Christ  has 
done.  Besides,  we  are  condemned  for  one  sin  only  on  Adam's 
account;  whereas  Christ  saves  us  not  only  from  the  evils  conse- 
quent on  that  transgression,  but  also  from  the  punishment  of 
our  own  innumerable  offences.  Now,  if  for  the  offence  of  one, 
death  thus  triumphs  over  all,  how  much  more  shall  they  who 
receive  the  grace  of  the  gospel  (not  only  be  saved  from  evil), 
but  reign  in  life  through  Christ  Jesus. 

Wherefore,  as  on  account  of  one,  the  condemnatory  sentence 
has  passed  on  all  the  descendants  of  Adam;  so  on  account  of 
the  righteousness  of  one,  gratuitous  justification  comes  on  all 
who  receive  the  grace  of  Christ;  for  as  on  account  of  the  diso- 
bedience of  one,  we  are  regarded  as  sinners;  so  on  account  of 
the  obedience  of  the  other,  we  are  regarded  as  righteous. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  preceding 
interpretation  of  this  whole  section.  I.  The  first  is,  that  the 
evidence  of  its  correctness  is  cumulative,  and  is,  therefore,  not 
to  be  judged  exclusively  by  what  is  said  in  favour  of  the  view 
presented  of  any  one  of  its  parts.  If  it  is  probable  that  v.  12 
asserts,  that  all  men  became  subject  to  death  on  account  of  one 
man;  this  is  rendered  still  plainer  by  the  drift  and  force  of  vs. 
13,  14;  it  is  rendered  almost  certain  by  v.  15,  where  it  is 
asserted,  that  for  the  offence  of  one  the  many  die;  by  v.  16, 
where  it  is  said  that  for  one*  offence  all  are  condemned;  by  v. 
17,  which  affirms  again  that  the  ground  of  death's  reigning 
over  all  is  to  be  found  in  this  one  offence;  and  it  would  appear 
to  be  raised  almost  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt  by  v.  18,  where 
the  words  of  v.  16  are  repeated,  and  the  analogy  with  the 
method  of  our  justification  expressly  asserted;  and  by  v.  19,  in 
which  this  same  idea  is  reiterated  in  a  form  which  seems  to  set 
all  efforts  at  misunderstanding  or  misinterpretation  at  defiance. 
2.  The  force  of  a  remark  previously  made,  may  now  be  more 
fully  appreciated,  viz.  that  the  sentiment  attributed  to  v.  12, 
after  having  been  proved  in  vs.  13,  14,  is  ever  after  assumed  as 
the  ground  of  illustrating  the  nature,  and  confirming  the  cer- 
tainty of  our  justification.  Thus,  in  v.  16,  for  if  by  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  &c. ;  and  v.  17,  for  if  by  one 

28 


218  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

man's  offence,  &c. ;  in  v.  18,  therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one 
all  are  condemed,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  all  are 
justified;  and,  finally,  in  v.  19,  for  as  by  one  man's  disobe- 
dience, &c. 

3.  In  connexion  with  these  remarks,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  interpretation  given  to  the  several  clauses  in  this 
passage  is  the  simple  natural  meaning  of  the  words,  as,  with 
scarcely  an  exception,  is  admitted.  The  objections  relied  upon 
against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  theological,  rather  than  a 
philological  or  exegetical  character.  This  interpretation  too  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  itself,  harmonious  with  the  design  of 
the  apostle,  and  illustrative  of  the  point  which  he  proposed  to 
explain.  If  all  these  separate  sources  of  proof  be  properly 
considered,  and  brought  to  bear,  with  their  mutually  sustaining 
force,  on  a  candid  mind,  it  can  hardly  fail  to  acknowledge  that 
the  commonly  received  view  of  this  interesting  portion  of  the 
word  of  God,  is  supported  by  an  amount  and  force  of  evidence 
not  easily  overthrown  or  resisted, 

4.  This  interpretation  is  old.  It  appears  in  the  writings  of 
the  early  Christian  fathers;  it  has  the  sanction,  in  its  essential 
features,  of  the  great  body  of  the  Reformers;  it  has  commanded 
the  assent  of  men  of  all  parties,  and  of  every  form  of  theologi- 
cal opinion.  The  modern  Rationalist,  certainly  an  impartial 
witness,  who  considers  it  a  melancholy  proof  of  the  apostle's 
subjection  to  Jewish  prejudices,  and  the  devout  and  humble 
Christian  unite  in  its  adoption.  An  interpretation  which  has 
stood  its  ground  so  long  and  so  firmly,  and  which  has  com- 
mended itself  to  minds  so  variously  constituted,  cannot  be  dis- 
missed as  a  relic  of  a  former  age,  or  disparaged  as  the  offspring 
of  theological  speculation. 

5.  Neither  of  the  opposite  interpretations  can  be  consistently 
carried  through.  They  are  equally  at  variance  with  the  design 
of  the  apostle,  and  the  drift  of  his  argument.  They  render  the 
design  and  force  of  vs.  13,  14  either  nugatory  or  unintelligible. 
They  require  the  utmost  violence  to  be  done  to  the  plainest 
rules  of  exposition;  and  the  most  unnatural  interpretations  to 
be  given  to  the  most  perspicuous  and  important  declarations  of 
the  apostle.  Witness  the  assertion,  that  "  receiving  the  abun- 
dance of  grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  means  to  be  brought 
under  a  dispensation  of  mercy;  and  that  "  to  reign  in  life  by  one, 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  219 

Jesus  Christ,"  is  to  be  brought  under  a  dispensation  of  life. 
Thus,  too,  <•'  the  free  gift  of  justification  of  life  has  come  upon 
all  men,"  is  made  to  mean  that  all  are  in  a  salvable  state; 
and  "  all  are  constituted  righteous,"  (i.  e.  "justified,  pardoned, 
regarded  and  treated  as  righteous")  is  only  to  have  the  offer  of 
pardon  proffered  to  all.  These  are  but  a  tithe  of  the  exegetical 
difficulties  attending  the  other  interpretations  of  this  passage, 
which  make  the  reception  of  either  the  severest  of  all  sacrifices 
to  prejudice  or  authority. 

(20)  Moreover  the  law  entered  that  the  offence  might 
abound,  &c.  Paul,  having  shown  that  our  justification  was 
effected  without  the  intervention  of  either  the  moral  or  Mosaic 
law,  was  naturally  led  to  state  the  design  and  result  of  the  re- 
newed revelation  of  the  one  and  the  superinduction  of  the 
other.  The  law  stands  here  for  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy,  including  the  clear  revelation  of  the  moral  law, 
and  all  the  institutions  connected  with  the  former  dispensation. 
The  main  design  and  result  of  this  dispensation,  considered  as 
law,  that  is,  apart  fi-om  the  evangelical  import  of  many  of  its 
parts,  was  that  sin  or  offence  might  abound.  There  is  an 
ambiguity  here  in  the  original,  which  does  not  exist  in  our  ver- 
sion. The  Greek  may  mean  either  that  the  design  of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  law  was  that  sin  might  abound;  or,  simply, 
that  such  was  the  result.  Which  idea  is  to  be  preferred  de- 
pends on  the  view  taken  of  the  word  rendered  abound.  This 
word  may,  according  to  a  very  common  usage,  mean,  to  appear, 
or  be  seen  as  abounding;  see  ch.  4:  5,  "  Let  God  be  true,"  i.  e. 
let  it  be  seen  and  acknowledged  that  he  is  true.  Agreeably 
to  this  view,  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is,  that  the  great  design 
of  the  law  (in  reference  to  justification)  is  to  produce  the 
knowledge  and  conviction  of  sin.  Taking  the  word  in  its  usual 
sense,  the  meaning  is,  the  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  law 
Avas  the  increase  of  sin.  This  result  is  to  be  attributed  partly  to 
the  fact  that  by  enlarging  the  knowledge  of  the  rule  of  duty,  re- 
sponsibility was  proportionably  increased,  according  to  ch.  4: 
15;  and  partly  to  the  consideration  that  the  enmity  of  the  heart 
is  awakened  by  its  operation  and  transgressions  actually  multi- 
plied, agreeably  to  ch.  7:  8.  Both  views  of  the  passage  ex- 
press an  important  truth,  as  the  conviction  of  sin  and  its  inci- 
dental increase  are  alike  the  result  of  the  operation  of  the  law. 


220-  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

It  seems,  however,  more  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  ob- 
ject, and  with  the  general,  although  not  uniform  force,  of  the  par- 
ticle (I'va)  rendered  that^  to  consider  the  clause  as  expressing 
the  design,  rather  than  the  result  simply  of  the  giving  of  the 
law. 

The  word  entered  is  hardly  an  adequate  translation  of  the 
original  term  (•n-a^sio'SjXSs).  The  latter  expresses,  in  Gal.  3:  4,  the 
idea  of  surreptitious  entrance,  and  here  probably  that  of  su- 
perinduction.  The  law  was  superinduced  on  a  plan  already 
laid.  It  was  not  designed  for  the  accomplishment  of  man's  sal- 
vation, that  is,  either  for  his  justification  or  sanctification,  but 
for  the  accomplishment  of  a  very  subordinate  part  in  the  great 
scheme  of  mercy.  The  Jews,  therefore,  erred  greatly,  both  by 
over-estimating  its  importance  and  mistaking  its  design.  It 
was  never  intended  to  give  life. 

But  where  siji  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound. 
That  is,  great  as  is  the  prevalance  of  sin,  as  seen  and  felt  in  the 
light  of  God's  holy  law,  yet  over  all  this  evil  the  grace  of  the 
gospel  has  abounded.  The  gospel  or  the  grace  of  God  has  proved 
itself  much  more  efficacious  in  the  production  of  good,  than  sin 
in  the  production  of  evil.  This  idea  is  illustrated  in  the  following 
verse. 

(21)  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  &c.  That  is,  as 
sin  has  powerfully  prevailed,  and  is  followed  by  death  as  its 
necessary  consequence.  The  word  reigned  expresses  strongly 
the  extended  authority  and  power  of  sin  over  the  human  family; 
a  power  which  is  deadly,  destructive  of  all  excellence  and  happi- 
ness. 

Even  so  tnight  grace  reign,  through  righteousness^ 
unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  The  words 
"  righteousness  unto  eternal  life"  should  not  be  separated  by  a 
comma  as  is  commonly  done  in  our  bibles.  And  the  word 
translated  righteous7iess  s\io\x\(\  be  renderedj  us/ ij]  cat  ion,  as  ap- 
pears by  a  comparison  with  the  preceding  verses.  "  Justification 
unto  eternal  life"  is  the  same  with  the  "justification  of  life"  in  v, 
18;  both  expressions  mean  'that  justification  which  is  connected 
with  eternal  life.'  It  will  be  remarked  that  these  words  answer 
to  the  death  spoken  o(  in  the  preceding  clause.  As  death  is  the 
consequence  and  attendant  of  sin,  so  the  justification  of  life  is 
the  consequence  and  attendant  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel. 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  221 

Br  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  To  him,  and  him  alone,  do  we 
owe  it  that  the  reign  of  sin  and  death  has  not  produced  univer- 
sal and  perpetual  desolation.  He  has  brought  deliverance  from 
both,  and  introduction  into  eternal  life. 

*  Grace  much  more  abounds  than  sin,'  1.  Because  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  taking  into  view  those  who  die  in  infancy  and 
the  probable  future  state  of  the  church,  that  the  number  of  the 
saved  will  greatly  exceed  that  of  the  lost.  2.  Because  Christ 
does  far  more  than  merely  repair  the  evils  of  sin.  He  not  only 
delivers  us  from  its  power  and  penalty,  but  exalts  our  natures 
and  persons  to  a  state  to  which  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
they  would  otherwise  ever  have  attained.  3.  Through  the  re- 
deemed church  is  to  be  manifested  in  ages  to  come,  to  principal- 
ities and  powers,  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.  The  results 
of  redemption  no  tongue  can  tell,  no  heart  conceive. 

Doctrines. 
I.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  clearly  taught  in  this  pas- 
sage.    This  doctrine  does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
identity  of  Adam  and  his  race;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the  mo- 
ral turpitude  of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.     It  does  not  teach 
that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin  of  all  men, 
or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of  his  pos- 
terity.   Neither  does  it  imply,  in  reference  to  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  that  his  righteousness  becomes  personally  and  in- 
herently ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  trans- 
ferred from  him  to  believers.     The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is 
no  ground  to  us  of  remorse;  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
no  ground  of  self-complacency  in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed. 
This  doctrine  merely  teaches,  that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  re- 
presentative and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  his  sin 
is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is,  of  their  subjection 
to  penal  evils;  and  that  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  Christ 
and  his  people,  his  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  their  justifi- 
cation.    This  doctrine  is  taught  almost  in  so  many  words  in  vs. 
12,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19.     It  is  so  clearly  stated,  so  often  repeated 
or  assumed,  and  so  formally  proved,  that  very  few  commenta- 
tors of  any  class,  fail  to  acknowledge,  in  one  form  or  another, 
that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle. 

It  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  statement  of  the  doctrine 


222  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

just  given,  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  form  in  which  it  wa? 
held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  churches  and  divines. 
A  few  quotations  from  men  of  universally  recognized  authority, 
as  competent  witnesses  on  this  subject,  must  suffice.  Turrettin 
( Theol.  Ehnch.  Quaest.  IX.  p.  67S)  says,  "  Imputation  is  either 
of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something  properly  our  own. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  personally  ours;  in 
which  sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions.  Some- 
times that  is  imputed  which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed 
by  ourselves;  thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  im- 
puted to  us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  although  he  has 
neither  sin  in  himself,  nor  w-e  righteousness.  Here  we  speak  of 
the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  of  the  former,  because  we  are 
treating  of  a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  not  by  us,"  The  ground 
of  this  imputation  is  the  union  between  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
This  union  is  not  a  mysterious  identity  of  person,  but,  1.  "  Natu- 
ral, as  he  is  the  father,  and  we  are  the  children.  2.  Political 
and  forensic,  as  he  was  the  representative  head  and  chief  of  the 
whole  human  race.  The  foundation,  therefore,  of  imputation 
is  not  only  the  natural  connexion  which  exists  between  us  and 
Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins  might  be  imputed  to  us, 
but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal,  in  virtue  of  which  God  en- 
tered into  covenant  with  him  as  our  head."  Again,  "We  are 
constituted  sinners  in  Adam  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  are 
constituted  righteous  in  Christ."  Again,  (Vol.  II.  p.  707)  to  im- 
pute, he  says,  "  is  a  forensic  term,  w^hich  is  not  to  be  understood 
physically  of  the  infusion  of  righteousness,  but  judicially  and 
relatively."  Imputation  does  not  alter  the  moral  character; 
hence  the  same  individual  may,  in  different  respects,  be  called 
both  just  and  unjust;  "  For  when  reference  is  had  to  the  in- 
herent quality,  he  is  called  a  sinner  and  ungodly;  but  when  the 
external  and  forensic  relation  to  Christ  is  regarded,  he  is  pro- 
nounced just  in  Christ."  "When  God  justifies  us  on  account 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  his  judgment  is  still  according 
to  truth;  because  he  does  not  pronounce  us  just  in  ourselves 
subjectively,  which  would  be  false,  but  in  anotiier  putatively 
and  relatively."  Tuckney,  {Praelectioncs,^.  234)  "We  are 
counted  righteous  through  Christ  in  tlic  same  manner  that  we 
are  counted  guilty  through  Adam.  The  latter  is  by  impu- 
tation, therefore,  also  the  former."     "  We  are  not  so  foolish  or 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  223 

blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  to  think,  that  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ  makes  us  formally  and  subjectively  right- 
eous;" see  further  quotations  from  this  writer  on  ch.  4:  5. 
Owen  (in  his  work  on  Justification,  p.  236)  says, "  Things  which 
are  not  our  own  originally,  inherently,  may  yet  be  imputed  to 
us,  ex  justitia,  by  the  rule  of  righteousness.  And  this  may  be 
done  upon  a  double  relation  unto  those  whose  they  are,  1.  Fede- 
ral. 2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one  may  be  imputed  unto 
others,  propter  relationem  foederalem,  because  of  a  covenant 
relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  unto 
all  his  posterity.  And  the  ground  hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in 
the  same  covenant  with  him  who  was  our  head  and  representa- 
tive." On  p.  242,  he  says,  "  This  imputation  (of  Christ's  right- 
eousness) is  not  the  transmission  or  transfusion  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  another  into  them  which  are  to  be  justified,  that  they 
should  become  perfectly  and  inherently  righteous  thereby. 
For  it  is  impossible  that  the  righteousness  of  one  should  be 
transfused  into  another,  to  become  his  subjectively  and  inhe- 
rently." Again,  p.  307,  "  As  we  are  made  guilty  by  Adam's 
actual  sin,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  to  us; 
so  are  we  made  righteous  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which 
is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  to  us."  On  page  468, 
he  says,  "  Nothing  is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto  any, 
but  the  rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the  punishment 
due  unto  that  sin.  As  the  not  imputing  of  sin  is  the  freeing  of 
men  from  being  subject  or  liable  to  punishment."  It  is  one  of  his 
standing  declarations,  "  To  be  alienae  ciilpae  reus  makes  no 
MAN  A  SINNER."  Knapp  (in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  sect.  76) 
says,  in  stating  what  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is,  "  God's  im- 
puting the  sin  of  our  first  parents  to  their  descendants,  amounts 
to  this:  God  punishes  the  descendants  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
their  first  parents,"  This  he  gives  as  a  mere  historical  state- 
ment of  the  nature  of  the  doctrine  and  the  form  in  which  its 
advocates  maintained  it.  Zachariae  {Bib.  Theologie,  Vol.  II.  p. 
394)  says,  "  If  God  allows  the  punishment  which  Adam  incur- 
red to  come  on  all  his  descendants,  he  imputes  his  sin  to  them 
all.  And,  in  this  sense,  Paul  maintains  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed  to  all,  because  the  punishmehl  of  the  one  offence  of 
Adam  has  come  upon  all."  And  Bretschneider,  as  quoted 
above  on  ch.  4:  3,  when  stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers, 


224  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

as  presented  in  the  various  creeds  published  under  their  au- 
thority, says,  that  they  regarded  justification,  which  includes  the 
idea  of  imputation,  as  a  forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  by 
which  the  relation  of  man  to  God,  and  not  the  man  himself 
was  changed.  And  imputation  of  righteousness  they  described 
as  "  That  judgment  of  God,  according  to  which  he  treats  us  as 
though  we  had  not  sinned  but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  was  ours."  This  view  of  justifica- 
tion they  constantly  maintained  in  opposition  to  the  Papists, 
who  regarded  it  as  a  moral  change  consisting  in  what  they 
called  the  infusion  of  righteousness. 

Though  this  view  of  the  nature  of  imputation  both  of  sin  and 
righteousness,  is  so  familiar,  yet  as  almost  all  the  objections  to 
the  doctrine  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  it  proceeds  on 
the  ground  of  a  mysterious  identity  between  Adam  and  his  race 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Christ  and  his  people  on  the  other;  and 
that  it  implies  the  transfer  of  the  moral  character  of  the  acts 
imputed,  it  seemed  necessary  to  present  some  small  portion  of 
the  evidence  which  might  be  adduced,  to  show  that  the  view  of 
the  subject  presented  above  is  that  which  has  always  been  held 
by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  churches.  The  objections 
urged  against  this  doctrine  at  the  present  day,  are  precisely  the 
same  which  were  urged  by  the  Catholics  against  the  Reformers; 
and  the  answers  which  we  are  obliged  to  repeat,  are  the  same 
which  the  Reformers  and  their  successors  gave  to  those  with 
whom  they  had  to  contend. 

It  will  be  seen  how  large  a  portion  of  the  objections  are  an- 
swered by  the  mere  statement  of  the  doctrine.  1.  It  is  objected 
that  this  doctrine  "  contradicts  the  essential  principles  of  moral 
consciousness.  We  never  did,  and  never  can  feel  guilty  of 
another's  act,  which  was  done  without  any  knowledge  or  con- 
currence of  our  own.  We  may  just  as  well  say  we  can  appro- 
priate to  ourselves,  and  make  our  own,  the  righteousness  of 
another,  as  his  unrighteousness.  But  we  can  never,  in  either 
case,  even  force  ourselves  into  a  consciousness  that  any  act  is 
really  our  own,  except  one  in  which  we  have  had  a  personal  and 
voluntary  concern.  A  transfer  of  moral  turpitude  is  just  as 
impossible  as  a  transfer  of  souls;  nor  does  it  lie  within  the 
boundary  of  human  effort,  that  we  should  repent  of  Adam^s 
sin."     Prof.   Stuart,  p.  239.     This  idea  is  repeated  very  fre- 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  225 

quently  in  his  Commentary  on  this  passage,  and  the  Excursus 
IV.  V.     "  To  say  Adam's  disobedience  was  the  occasion,  or 
ground,  or  instrumental  cause  of  all  men  becoming  sinners,  and 
was  thus  an  evil  to  them  all,  and  to  say  that  his  disobedience 
wdiS  personally  theirs,  is  saying  two  very  diflferent  things.     I 
see  no  way  in  which  this  last  assertion   can  ever  be  made  out 
by  philology."     Compare  Mr.  Barnes,  p.  119.     Prof.  Stuart 
further  says,  p.  212,  that  if  verse  12  speaks  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  it  could  not  be  said  men  had  not  sinned  after  the 
likeness  of  Adam's  transgression.     "  So  far  from  this  must  it 
be,  that  Adam's  sin  is  their  very  sin,  and  the  ground  why  death 
reigns  over  them."     Mr.  Barnes  says,  p.  119,  "  If  the  doctrine 
of  imputation  be  true,  they  had  not  only  had  sinned  after  the 
similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  but  had  sinned  the  very 
identical  sin.     It  was  precisely  like  him.     It  was  the  very 
thing  itself."     In  like  manner,  on  p.  96,  he  says,  "But  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  scriptures  was,  that  the  entire  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and 
was  transferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what  propriety  could 
the  apostle  say  that  God  justified  the  ungodly?  &c."     "  They 
are  eminently  pure,  and  have  a  claim  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt, 
to  the  very  highest  rewards  of  heaven."     It  will  be  at  once 
perceived  that  these  and  similar  objections  are  all  founded  on  a 
misapprehension  of  the  doctrine  in  question.     They  are   all 
directed  against  the  ideas  of  identity  of  person,  and  transfer  of 
moral  character,  neither  of  which  is,  as  we  have  seen,  included 
in  it;  they  are,  moreover,  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  true 
nature  of  the  doctrine,  but  with  the  statements  and  arguments 
of  these  writers  themselves.     Thus  Prof.  Stuart,  p.  239,  says, 
"  That '  the  son  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the  father,'  is 
as  true  as  that '  the  father  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the 
son;'  as  God  has  most  fully  declared  in  Ezek.  18."     According 
to  this  view  of  the  subject,  "  for  the  son  to  die  for  the  iniquity 
of  the  father,"  is  to  have  the  sin  of  the  father  imputed  to  him, 
or  laid   to  his  charge.      The  ideas  of  personal   identity  and 
transfer  of  moral  character  are  necessarily  excluded  from  it,  by  its 
opponents  themselves;  who  thus  virtually  admit  the  irrelevancy 
of  their  previous  objections.    The  fact  is,  that  imputation  is  never 
represented  as  affecting  the  moral  character,  but  merely  the 
relation  of  men  to  God  and  his  law.     To  impute  sin  is  to  regard 

29 


226  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

and  treat  as  a  sinner;  and  to  impute  righteousness  is  to  regard 
and  treat  as  righteous. 

2.  It  is  said  that  this  doctrine  is  nothing  but  a  theory,  an 
attempt  to  explain  what  the  apostle  does  not  explain,  a  philo- 
sophical speculation,  &c.  &c.  This  again  is .  a  mistake.  It  is 
neither  a  theory  nor  a  philosophical  speculation;  but  the  state- 
ment of  a  scriptural  fact  in  scriptural  language.  Paul  says,  '  for 
the  offence  of  one  man  all  men  are  condemned;'  and  'for  the 
righteousness  of  one  all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.' 
This  is  the  whole  doctrine. 

3.  It  is  asserted  that  the  word  impute  is  never  used  in  the 
bible  in  reference  to  reckoning  or  charging  upon  a  man  any 
thing  which  is  not  strictly  and  properly  his  own.  But  this  has 
been  shown  to  be  incorrect;  see  ch.  4:3.  It  is  used  twice  in 
ch.  4,  of  "  imputing  righteousness"  to  those  without  works,  to 
the  ungodly,  &c.  But  if  the  objection  were  well  founded,  it 
would  be  destitute  of  any  force;  for  if  the  word  means  so  to 
ascribe  an  action  to  a  man  as  to  treat  him  as  the  author  of  it;  it 
would  be  correct  and  scriptural  to  say  that  the  sin  or  righteous- 
ness of  one  man  is  imputed  to  another,  when  that  sin  or  right- 
eousness is  made  the  ground  of  the  condemnation,  or  justification 
of  any  other  than  its  personal  authors. 

4.  It  is  denied  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  his  pos- 
terity, because  he  is  not  so  called  in  scripture,  and  because  a 
representative  supposes  the  consent  of  those  for  whom  he  acts. 
But  this  is  a  mistake.  It  is  rare  that  a  representative  is  ap- 
pointed by  the  choice  of  all  on  whom  Ids  acts  are  binding.  This 
is  the  case  in  no  country  in  the  world;  and  nothing  is  more 
common  than  for  a  parent  or  court  to  appoint  a  guardian  to  act 
as  the  representative  of  a  minor.  If  it  is  competent  for  a  parent 
to  make  such  an  appointment,  it  is  surely  proper  in  God.  It  is 
a  mere  question  of  fact.  If  the  scriptures  teach  that  Adam  was 
on  trial  not  for  himself  only,  but  nlso  for  his  ])osterity;  if  the 
race  fell  when  he  fell;  then  do  they  teach  that  he  was  in  fact 
and  form  their  representative.  That  they  do  leach  the  fact  sup- 
posed, can  scarcely  be  denied;  it  is  asserted  as  often  as  it  is 
stated,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  gi'ound  of  the  condemna- 
tion of  men. 

5.  It  is  said  tliat  the  doctrine  of  imj)utaLion  is  inconsistent 
with  the  tlrst   ])rinciples  of  justice.      This  objection  is  only 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  227 

of  force  against  the  mistaken  view  given  above.  It  has  no 
weight  against  the  true  doctrine.  It  is  on  all  hands  admitted 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  involved  the  race  in  ruin.  This  is  the 
whole  difficulty.  How  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  divine 
character,  that  the  fate  of  unborn  millions  should  depend  on  an 
act  over  which  they  had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which 
they  had  no  agency  ?  This  difficulty  presses  the  opponents  of 
the  doctrine  more  heavily  than  its  advocates.  The  former  have 
no  advantage  over  the  latter;  not  in  the  amount  of  evil  in- 
flicted ;  because  they  make  the  evil  directly  inflicted  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin  much  greater  than  the  others  do;  not  in  the 
provision  made  for  the  redemption  of  the  race  from  this  evil; 
because  both  maintain  that  the  work  of  Christ  brings  the  offer 
of  life  to  the  whole  race,  while  it  infallibly  secures  the  salvation 
of  a  multitude  which  no  man  can  number.  The  opinion  of  those 
writers  not  only  has  no  advantage  over  the  common  doctrine, 
but  it  is  encumbered  with  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself.  It  re- 
presents the  race  as  being  involved  in  ruin  and  condemnation, 
without  having  the  slightest  probation.  According  to  one  view, 
they  "  are  born  with  a  corrupt  disposition,  and  with  loss  of 
righteousness,  and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo,"  by  a  mere 
arbitrary  appointment  of  God,  and  without  a  trial,  either  per- 
sonally, or  by  a  representative.  According  to  another  view, 
men  are  born  without  any  such  corrupt  disposition,  but  in  a 
state  of  indifference,  and  are  placed  on  their  probation  at  the 
very  first  moment  of  moral  agency,  and  under  a  constitution 
which  infallibly  secures  their  becoming  sinners.  Besides,  it  is 
not  the  scriptural  view  of  the  subject.  Paul  represents  the  evils 
which  came  on  men  on  account  of  the  offence  of  Adam  as  a 
condemnation;  not  as  an  arbitrary  infliction,  nor  as  a  merely 
natural  consequence.  We  are  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the  truth 
as  taught  in  the  scriptures,  and  not  to  introduce  explanations 
and  theories  of  our  own.  The  denial  of  this  doctrine  involves 
also  the  denial  of  the  scriptural  view  of  atonement  and  justifi- 
cation. It  is  essential  to  the  scriptural  form  of  these  doctrines, 
that  the  idea  of  legal  substitution  should  be  retained.  Christ 
bore  our  sins;  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him,  which,  accor- 
ding to  the  true  meaning  of  scriptural  language,  can  only 
signify,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of  those  sins;  not  the  same 
evils  indeed,  cither  in  kind  or  degree;  but  still  penal,  because 


228  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of  law.  It  matters  little 
whether  a  debt  be  paid  in  gold  or  copper,  provided  it  is  cancelled. 
And  as  a  comparatively  small  quantity  of  the  former  is  of  equal 
value  with  a  great  deal  of  the  latter,  so  the  temporary  sufferings 
of  Christ  are  of  more  value  for  all  the  purposes  of  punishment, 
than  the  eternal  sufferings  of  all  mankind.  It  is  then  no  ob- 
jection to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  sacrifice  and  atonement,  that 
Christ  did  not  suffer  the  same  kind  or  degree  of  evil,  which 
those  for  whom  he  died  must  have  endured  in  their  own  persons. 
This  idea  of  legal  substitution  enters  also  into  the  scriptural 
view  of  justification.  In  justification,  according  to  Paul's  lan- 
guage, God  imputes  righteousness  to  the  ungodly.  This 
righteousness  is  not  their  own;  but  they  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid  to  their  account  or  imputed 
to  them,  that  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  if  it  were  their 
own;  or  "as  if  they  had  kept  the  law."  This  is  the  great 
doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  Luther's  ariiculns  stantis  vel 
cadentis  ecclesine.  The  great  question  between  the  Papists 
and  Protestants  was,  whether  men  are  Justified  on  account  of 
inherent  or  of  imputed  righteousness  .''  For  the  latter,  the  Pro- 
testants contended  as  for  their  lives,  and  for  the  life  of  the 
church.  See  the  passages  quoted  above  on  ch.  4:  3,  and  the 
Confessions  of  that  period.* 

•  Apol.  art.  9,  p.  226,  Merita  propitiatoris — aliis  donantur  impiitatione  divina,  ut 
per  ca,  tanquam  propriis  meritis  justi  reputentur,  ut  si  quis  amicus  pro  amico  solvit 
aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam  proprio  lihcratur. 

F.  Concordaiitiac,  art.  3,  p.  687,  Ad  justilicationein  tria  requiruntur:  gratia  Dei, 
merituin  Clmsli  ct  fides,  quae  hacc  ipsa  Dei  bencfk-ia  aniplectitur;  qua  rationc 
nobis  Christijiistitia  impiitatur,  unde  reniissioncm  pcccatoruni,  rcconciliationem 
cum  Deo,  adoptionem  in  filios  Dei  et  hacreditatcm  vitae  aetcrnae  consequimur. 

F.  C.  III.  p.  684,  Fides  non  proptcrca  justificat,  quod  ipsa  tam  bonuni  opus,  tam- 
que  praeclara  virtus  sit,  sed  quia  in  promissione  cvangelii  meritvm  Christi  appre- 
hendit  ct  amplcctitur,  illud  cnim  per  fidrm  nobis  applicari  debat,  si  co  ipso  merito 
justificari  vclimus. 

F.  C.  III.  p.  688,  il\\xis\.ij7istitia  nobin  impiitatuv,  unde  remi.ssionem  pcccatoruni 
consequimur. 

Bretschncidcr,  Dog.  Vol.  II.  p.  254,  says  tliat,  according  to  tlic  creeds  of  the  re- 
formation, justification  "  is  tliat  act  of  God  in  which  he  imputes  to  a  man  the  merit 
of  Christ,  and  no  longer  regards  and  treats  him  as  a  sinner  but  as  righteous."  "It 
is  an  act  in  which  neither  man  nor  Cod  changes,  but  the  man  is  merely  freed  from 
guilt,  and  declared  to  be  free  from  punishment,  and  hence  the  relation  only  between 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  229 

6.  As  the  term  death  is  used  for  any  and  every  evil  judi- 
cially inflicted  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  the  amount  and  nature 
of  the  evil  not  being  expressed  by  the  word,  it  is  no  part  of  the 
apostle's  doctrine  that  eternal  misery  is  inflicted  on  any  man 
for  the  sin  of  Adam,  irrespective  of  inherent  depravity  or  actual 
transgression.  It  is  enough  for  all  the  purposes  of  his  argument 
that  that  sin  was  the  ground  of  the  loss  of  the  divine  favour, 
the  withholding  of  divine  influence,  and  the  consequent  cor- 
ruption of  our  nature.* 

II.  Whatever  evil  the  scriptures  represent  as  coming  upon 
us  on  account  of  Adam,  they  regard  as  penal;  they  call  it  death, 
which  is  the  general  term  by  which  any  penal  evil  is  expressed. 

It  is  not  however  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  nor  of  the 
Reformed  churches,  nor  of  our  standards,  that  the  corruption  of 
nature  of  which  they  speak,  is  any  depravation  of  the  soul,  or  an 
essential  attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  positive  evil.  "  Origi- 
nal sin,"  as  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformers  mantain,  "is  not  the 
substance  of  man,  neither  his  soul  nor  body;  nor  is  it  any  thing 
infused  into  his  nature  by  Satan,  as  poison  is  mixed  with  wine; 
it  is  not  an  essential  attribute,  but  an  accident,!  i.  e.  something 
which  does  not  exist  of  itself,  an  incidental  quality,  &.c."  Bret- 
schneider,  Vol.  II.  p.  30.  These  confessions  teach  that  original 
righteousness,  as  a  punishment  of  Adam's  sin,  was  lost,  and  by 
that  defect  the  tendency  to  sin,  or  corrupt  disposition,  or  cor- 
ruption of  nature  is  occasioned. .t    Though  they  speak  of  original 

God  and  man  is  altered."     This,  he  says,  the  symboUcal  books  maintained  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Romish  church,  which  makes  justification  a  moral  change. 

*  TuRHETTix  Theologia  Elenct.  Vol.  I.  p.  680,  Poena  quam  peccatum  Adami 
in  nos  accersit,  vel  est  privativa,  vel  positiva.  Quoad  primam  dicimus  Adami 
peccatum  nobis  imputari  immediate  ad  poenam  privativam,  quia  est  causa  privatio- 
nis  justitiae  originalis,  et  sic  corruptionem  antecedere  debet  saltern  ordine  naturae  : 
Sed  quoad  posteriorem  potest  dici  imputari  mediate  quoad  poenam  positivam,  quia 
isti  poenae  obnoxii  non  sumus,  nisi  postquam  nati  et  corrupti  sumus. 

f  Accidens :  quod  non  per  se  subsistit,  sed  m  aliqua  substantia  est  et  ab  ea  dis- 
cerni  possit. 

t  F.  Concor.  I.  p.  643,  Etsi  enim  in  Adamo  et  Heva  natura  initio  pura,  bona 
et  sancta  creata  est ;  tamen  per  lapsum  peccatum  non  eo  modo  ipsorum  naturam 
invasit,  ut  Manichaei  dixerunt— quin  potius  cum  seductione  Satanae  per  lapsum, 
justo  Dei  judicio  (in  poenam  hominum)  justitia  concreata  seu  originalis  amissa 
esset,  defectu  illo,  privatione  seu  spoliatione  et  vulneratione,  (quorum  malorum 
Satan  causa  est)  humana  natura  ita  corrupta  est,  ut  jam  natura,  una  cum  illo  de- 
fectu et  corruptione,  &c. 


230  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

sin  as  being,  first,  negative,  i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness;  and, 
secondly,  positive,  or  corruption  of  nature;  yet  by  the  latter,  they 
state,  is  to  be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  any  thing  in  itself 
sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil  resulting  from 
the  loss  of  righteousness.  This  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  quota- 
tion just  made.  It  is,  therefore,  in  perfect  consistency  with  his 
own  views,  and  with  those  of  the  Protestant  creeds,  that  Presi- 
dent Edwards  teaches  in  his  book  on  original  sin;  "It  is  agreeable 
to  the  sentiments  of  the  best  divines,  that  all  sin  comes  from  a 
defective  or  privative  cause  (p.  28)';  and  that  he  argues  against  the 
idea  of  any  evil  quality  being  infused,  implanted,  or  wrought 
into  our  nature  by  any  positive  cause  or  influence  whatever, 
either  of  God  or  the  creature,  &c."  With  equal  consistency 
and  propriety,  he  goes  on  to  state  that  "  the  absence  of  positive 
good  principles,"  and  "the  withholding  of  special  divine  in- 
fluence," and  "  the  leaving  of  the  common  principles  of  self- 
love,  natural  appetite,  which  were  in  man  in  innocence,"  are 
sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  corruption  which  appears  among 
men.  See  Prof  Stuart,  p.  546.  Goodwin,  one  of  the  strictest 
of  the  Puritanical  divines  (Vol.  III.  p.  323),  has  a  distinct  chapter 
to  prove,  "  That  there  is  no  necessity  of  asserting  original  sin, 
to  be  a  positive  quality  in  our  souls,  since  the  privation  of  right- 
eousness is  enough  to  infect  the  soul  with  all  that  is  evil."  Yet 
he,  in  common  with  the  Reformers,  represents  original  sin  as 
having  a  positive  as  well  as  a  negative  side.  This,  however, 
results  from  the  active  nature  of  the  soul.  If  there  is  no  ten- 
dency to  the  love  and  service  of  God,  there  is,  from  this  very 
defect,  a  tendency  to  self  and  sin.  How  large  a  portion  of  the 
objections  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  founded  on  the  idea 
of  its  being  an  evil  positively  infused  into  our  nature,  "  as  poison 
is  mixed  with  wine,"  may  be  inferred  fi-om  tlie  exclamation  of 
Prof  Stuart,  in  reference  to  tlie  passage  just  quoted  from  Presi- 
dent Edwards.  He  says  it  is  "A  signal  instance,  indeed,  of 
the  triumph  of  the  spontaneous  feelings  of  our  nature,  over  the 
power  of  systemP^  It  would  seem  from  this,  that  he  has  no 
objection  to  the  doctrine  as  thus  stated.  And  yet,  this  is  the 
form  in  which,as  we  have  just  seen,  it  is  presented  in  the  creeds 
of  the  Reformers,  and  the  works  of  the  "  best  divines." 

It  will  be  at  once  perceived  that  all  such  questions  as  the  fol- 
lowing, proceed  on  an  incorrect  aj)prcheusion  of  the  point  at 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  231 

issue.  It  is  often  asked  '  If  Adam's  first  sin  is  propagated  to 
us,  why  not  all  his  other  sins  and  the  sins  of  all  our  ancestors?' 
No  one  properly  maintahis  that  Adum'sjirst  sin,  his  act  of  eat- 
ing the  forbidden  fruit,  is  propagated  to  any  one.  This  is  a 
sheer  impossibility.  We  derive  from  Adam  a  nature  destitute 
of  any  native  tendency  to  the  love  and  service  of  God;  and 
since  the  soul,  from  its  nature,  is  filled,  as  it  were,  with  suscep- 
tibilities, dispositions  or  tendencies  to  certain  modes  of  acting, 
or  to  objects  out  of  itself,  if  destitute  of  the  governing  tendency 
or  disposition  to  holiness  and  God,  it  has,  of  course,  a  tendency 
to  self-gratification  and  sin.  There  is  surely  nothing  incredible 
or  inconceivable  in  the  existence  of  a  native  tendency  to  delight 
in  God,  any  more  than  in  the  existence  of  a  tendency  or  dispo- 
sition to  delight  in  beauty,  or  social  intercourse,  or  in  our  own 
offspring.  Men  have  still  an  innate  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  a 
natural  sense  of  justice,  &c.  Why  then  may  not  Adam  have 
been  created  with  an  analogous  tendency  to  delight  in  God  ? 
And  if  this  disposition  presupposes  a  state  of  friendship  with 
his  Maker,  or  if  it  is  the  result  of  special  divine  influence,  why 
may  not  that  influence  be  withlield  as  the  expression  of  God's 
displeasure  for  the  apostacy  and  rebellion  of  man  ?  This  is  per- 
fectly analogous  to  the  dealings  of  God  in  his  providence, 
and  agreeable  to  the  declarations  of  his  word.  He  abandons 
sinners  to  themselves,  as  a  punishment  of  their  transgressions; 
he  withholds  or  withdraws  blessings  from  children  in  punish- 
ment, or  as  an  expression  of  his  displeasure  for  the  sins  of  their 
parents.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this  doctrine  at  va- 
riance with  the  divine  character  or  conduct.  On  the  contrary, 
it  has  in  its  support  the  whole  tenor  of  his  dealings  with  our 
race  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  The  objections,  there- 
fore, founded  on  the  supposed  absurdity  of  the  propagation  of 
sin,  and  especially  of  Adam's  Jirst  sin,  all  rest  on  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  doctrine  in  dispute. 

Nor  is  the  objection  any  better  supported,  that  the  doctrine 
of  corruption  of  nature  makes  God,  from  whom  that  nature 
proceeds,  the  author  of  sin.  Our  nature  is  not  corrupted  by 
any  positive  act  of  God,  or  by  the  infusion,  implanting  or  in- 
working  of  any  habit  or  principle  of  sin;  God  merely  withholds 
judicially  those  influences  which  produced  in  Adam  a  tendency 
or  disposition  to  holiness;  precisely  as  a  monarch  often,  from 


232  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

the  purest  and  wisest  motives,  withholds  favours  from  the  chil- 
dren of  traitors  or  rebels,  or  bestows  them  upon  the  children  of 
patriots  and  public  benefactors.  There  is  in  every  human  being 
a  tendency  to  act  upon  the  same  principle.  We  are  all  disposed 
to  regard  with  less  favour  the  children  of  the  wicked,  than  the 
children  of  the  good.  If  this  principle  is  recognized  even  in 
the  ordinary  dealings  of  divine  providence,  we  need  not  won- 
der at  its  being  acted  upon  in  that  great  transaction,  which  de- 
cided the  fate  of  the  world,  as  Adam  was  not  on  trial  for  him- 
self alone,  but  also  for  his  posterity. 

As  little  weight  is  due  to  the  objection,  that  the  law  of  propa- 
gation does  not  secure  the  transmission  of  bodily  defects  or 
mental  and  moral  peculiarities  of  parents  to  their  children. 
This  objection  supjioses  that  the  derivation  of  a  corrupt  nature 
from  Adam  is  resolved  into  this  general  law;  whereas  it  is  uni- 
formly represented  as  a  peculiar  case,  founded  on  the  represen- 
tative character  of  Adam,  and  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  this 
general  law  exclusively.  It  is  constantly  represented  as  result- 
ing from  the  judicial  withholding  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  from  an  apostate  race.  See  the  Confessions  of  the  Re- 
formers quoted  above.  Defcctus  et  conciipiscentia  sunt  poe- 
nae,  Apolgia,  1.  p.  58.  That  the  peculiarities,  and  especially  that 
the  piety  of  parents,  are  not  transmitted  by  the  law  of  propa- 
gation from  parents  to  children,  does  not,  therefore,  present  a 
shadow  of  an  objection  to  the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject. 

The  notorious  fact,  however,  that  the  mental  and  moral  pecu- 
liarities of  j)arents  are  transmitted  to  their  children,  frequently 
and  manifestly,  though  not  with  the  uniformity  of  an  establish- 
ed law,  answers  two  important  purposes.  It  shows  that  there 
is  nothing  absurd  or  out  of  analogy  with  God's  dealing  with 
men,  in  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity.  And  also,  that 
the  doctrine  is  consistent  with  God's  goodness  and  justice.  For 
if  under  the  administration  of  the  divine  13eing,  analogous  facts 
are  daily  occurring,  it  must  be  right  and  consistent  with  the 
perfections  of  God. 

The  most  common  and  plausible  objection  to  this  doctrine  is, 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  sin  and  iioliness  to  sup- 
pose that  cither  one  or  the  other  can  ])e  innate,  or  that  a  dispo- 
sition or  principle,  which  is  not  the  result  of  choice,  can  pos- 
sess a  moral  character.     To  this  objection,  President  Edwards 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  233 

answers,  "  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  a  contradiction  to  the 
nature  of  things  as  judged  of  by  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 
It  is  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  the  minds  of  men  in  all  ao-es,  not 
only  that  the  fruit  or  effect  of  a  good  choice  is  virtuous,  but  the 
good  choice  itself  from  which  that  effect  proceeds;  yea,  and 
not  only  so,  but  the  antecedent  good  disposition,  temper  or  af- 
fection of  mind,  from  whence  proceeds  that  good  choice,  is 
virtuous.  This  is  the  general  notion,  not  that  principles  derive 
their  goodness  from  actions,  but  that  actions  derive  their  good- 
ness from  the  principles  whence  they  proceed;  and  so  that  the 
act  of  choosing  that  which  is  good  is  no  farther  virtuous  than 
it  proceeds  from  a  good  principle  or  virtuous  disposition  of 
mind;  which  supposes  that  a  virtuous  disposition  of  mind  may 
be  before  a  virtuous  act  of  choice:  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  there  should  first  be  thought,  reflection  and 
choice,  before  there  can  be  any  virtuous  disposition.  If  the 
choice  be  first  before  the  existence  of  a  good  disposition  of 
heart,  what  signifies  that  choice?  There  can,  according  to  our 
natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a  choice  which  proceeds  from 
no  virtuous  principle,  but  from  mere  self-love,  ambition  or  some 
animal  appetite."  Original  Sin,  p.  140.  It  is  certainly  accord- 
ing to  the  intuitive  judgment  of  men,  that  innate  dispositions 
are  amiable  or  unamiable,  moral  or  immoral,  according  to  their 
nature;  and  that  their  character  does  not  depend  on  the  mode 
of  their  production.  The  parental  instinct,  pity,  sympathy 
with  the  happiness  and  sorrows  of  others,  though  founded  in 
innate  principles  of  our  nature,  are  universally  regarded  as 
amiable  attributes  of  the  soul;  and  the  opposite  dispositions  as 
the  reverse.  In  like  manner  the  sense  of  justice,  hatred  of 
cruelty  and  oppression,  though  natural,  are  moral  from  their 
very  nature.  And  the  universal  disposition  to  prefer  ourselves 
to  others,  though  the  strongest  of  all  the  native  tendencies  of 
the  mind,  is  no  less  universally  recognized  as  evil. 

The  opposite  opinion,  which  denies  the  possibility  of  moral 
dispositions  prior  to  acts  of  choice,  is  irreconcileable  with  the 
nature  of  virtue,  and  involves  us  in  all  the  difficulties  of  the 
doctrine,  that  indifference  is  necessary  to  the  freedom  of  the 
will  and  the  morality  of  actions.  If  Adam  was  created  neither 
holy  nor  unholy,  if  it  is  not  true  that  "  God  made  man  upright," 
but  that  he  formed  his  own  moral  character,  how  is  his  choice 

30 


234  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

of  God,  as  the  portion  of  his  soul,  to  be  accounted  for  ?  Or  what 
moral  character  could  it  have  ?  To  say  that  the  choice  was 
made  from  the  desire  of  happiness,  or  the  impulse  of  self-love, 
affords  no  solution  of  the  case;  because  it  does  not  account  for 
the  nature  of  the  choice.  It  assigns  no  reason  why  God,  in 
preference  to  any  other  object,  was  chosen.  This  desire  could 
only  prompt  to  a  choice,  but  could  not  determine  the  object. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  choice  was  determined  by  the  superior 
excellence  of  God  as  a  source  of  happiness;  this  supposes  that 
this  excellence  was  in  view  of  the  mind  an  object  supremely 
desirable;  but  the  desire  of  moral  excellence  is,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  a  moral  or  virtuous  desire;  and  if  this  determined 
the  choice,  moral  character  existed  prior  to  this  determination 
of  the  will,  and  neither  consisted  in  it,  nor  resulted  from  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  choice  was  determined  by  no  desire  of  the 
object  as  a  moral  good,  it  could  have  no  moral  character.  How 
is  it  possible  that  the  choice  of  an  object  which  is  made  from  . 
no  regard  for  its  excellence,  should  have  any  moral  character  ? 
The  choice,  considered  as  an  act  of  the  mind,  derives  its  cha- 
racter entirely  from  the  motive  by  which  it  is  determined.  If 
the  motive  be  desire  for  it  as  morally  excellent,  the  choice  is 
morally  good,  and  is  the  evidence  of  an  antecedent  virtuous  dis- 
position of  mind;  but  if  the  motive  be  mere  self-love,  the  choice 
is  neither  good  nor  bad.  There  is  no  way,  on  the  theory  in 
question,  of  accounting  for  this  preference  for  God,  but  by 
assuming  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will,  and  supposing 
that  the  selection  of  one  object,  rather  than  another,  is  made 
prior  to  the  rise  of  the  desire  for  it  as  excellent,  and  conse- 
quently in  a  state  of  indifference. 

This  reasoning,  though  it  applies  to  the  origin  of  holiness,  is 
not  applicable  to  the  origin  of  sin;  and,  therefore,  the  objection 
that  it  supposes  a  sinful  disposition  to  exist  in  Adam,  prior  to 
his  first  transgression,  is  not  valid.  Because  an  act  of  disobe- 
dience performed  under  the  impulse  of  self-love,  or  of  some 
animal  appetite  is  sinful;  it  does  not  follow,  that  an  act  of  obe- 
dience performed  under  a  similar  impulse,  and  without  any 
regard  for  God  or  moral  excellence,  is  virtuous. 

The  objection,  however,  which  has  now  been  considered, 
though  by  far  the  most  common  and  plausible  against  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  cannot,  with  any  consistency,  be  urgotl  by 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  235 

Prof.  Stuart  and  others  who  think  with  him,  because  he  re- 
peatedly and  expressly  disclaims  the  principle  on  which  it  is 
founded.  He  frequently  and  pointedly  admits  the  existence  of 
moral  disjjositions  antecedent  to  moral  acts;  and  speaks  of  them 
as  attributes  of  the  mind  which  may  be  innate  or  concreated. 
Thus,  p.  540,  he  says,  "  We  necessarily  draw  the  inference  that 
men  are  born  destitute  of  such  a  disposition  to  holiness  as  Adam 
had  in  his  primitive  state;  and  this,  from  the  fact  that  they 
never,  before  regeneration,  do  any  thing  which  is  truly  good 
and  holy,  but  always  sin,  in  all  their  actions  of  a  moral  nature. 
This  makes  a  wide  difference  between  their  present  natural 
state,  and  the  original  condition  of  Adam.  And  in  this  natural 
state  they  are  born,  as  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  in  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin."  Again,  on  p.  541,  he  says,  men  "  are 
despoiled  of  that  holiness  which  belonged  to  him  (Adam)  in  his 
original  state;"  "they  are  destitute  of  that  righteousness  which 
he  had,  &c."  On  page  549,  he  says,  "  We  are  born  destitute 
of  that  original  disposition  to  holiness  which  Adam,  before  his 
fall,  possessed."  "  To  enter  heaven,  and  to  enjoy  the  sacred 
pleasures  of  that  blessed  place,  there  must  be  d.  positive  taste  for 
them;  and  a  special  preparation  for  satisfaction  in  them.  If 
now  infants  are  saved  (which  I  do  hope  and  trust  is  the  case), 
then  they  must  have  such  a  relish  implanted  in  their  souls  for 
the  holy  joys  of  heaven,  as  will  Jit  them  to  be  the  happy  sub- 
jects of  those  joys.  Is  there  nothing  then,  which  Christ,  by  his 
Spirit,  can  do  for  them,  in  imparting  such  a  taste  ?  Is  there  no 
imperfection  of  nature  to  be  removed  ?  Is  there  no  positive 
blessing  to  be  bestowed  ?"  In  the  same  connexion,  he  says  that 
infants  who  die  before  they  can  contract  actual  guilt  in  their 
own  persons,  "  still  need  a  new  heart  and  a  right  spirit."  One 
feels  disposed,  on  reading  these  passages,  to  repeat  the  exclama- 
tion of  the  author  respecting  President  Edwards,  "A  signal 
instance,  indeed,  of  the  triumph  of  the  spontaneous  feelings  of 
our  nature"  (or  rather  of  Christian  consciousness)  "  over  the 
power  of  system!" 

Of  all  the  facts  ascertained  by  the  history  of  the  world,  it 
would  seem  to  be  among  the  plainest,  that  men  are  born  desti- 
tute of  a  disposition  to  seek  their  chief  good  in  God,  and  with 
a  disposition  to  make  self-gratification  the  great  end  of  their 


236  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

being.  Even  reason,  conscience,  natural  afi'ection,  are  less 
universal  characteristics  of  our  fallen  race.  For  there  are 
idiots  and  moral  monsters  often  to  be  met  with;  but  for  a  child 
of  Adam,  uninfluenced  by  the  special  grace  of  God,  to  delight 
in  his  Maker,  as  the  portion  of  his  soul,  from  the  first  dawn  of 
his  moral  being,  is  absolutely  without  example  among  all  the 
thousands  of  millions  of  men  who  have  inhabited  our  world. 
If  experience  can  establish  any  thing,  it  establishes  the  truth  of 
the  scriptural  declaration,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh."  It  would  seem  no  less  plain,  that  this  cannot  be  the 
original  and  normal  state  of  man;  that  human  nature  is  not  now 
what  it  Avas  when  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God.  Every 
thing  else  which  God  has  made  answers  the  end  of  its  being; 
but  human  nature,  since  the  fall,  has  uniformly  worked  badly; 
in  no  one  instance  has  it  spontaneously  turned  to  God  as  its 
chief  good.  It  cannot  be  believed  that  God  thus  made  man; 
that  there  has  been  no  perversion  of  his  faculties;  no  loss  of 
some  original  and  guiding  disposition  or  tendency  of  his  mind. 
It  cannot  be  credited  that  men  are  now  what  Adam  was,  when 
he  first  opened  his  eyes  on  the  wonders  of  creation  and  the  glo- 
ries of  God.  Reason,  scripture  and  experience,  therefore,  all 
concur  in  support  of  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
world,  that  the  race  fell  in  Adam,  lost  their  original  rectitude, 
and  became  prone  to  evil  as  the  sparks  to  fly  upward. 

This  doctrine  has  so  strong  a  witness  in  the  religious  experi- 
ence of  Christians,  that  it  is  not  wonderful  that  it  has  been  al- 
most universally  received.  Individual  opponents  and  objectors 
have  indeed,  from  time  to  time,  appeared,  but  it  is  believed  that 
no  organized  sect,  bearing  the  Christian  name,  the  Socinians  ex- 
cepted, have  ever  discarded  it  from  the  articles  of  their  faith. 
It  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrines  of  divine  influ- 
ence and  redemption,  that  they  have  almost  uniformly  been  held 
or  rejected  together.  It  has  indeed  often  been  said,  because  the 
term  ori'^inal  sin  was  first  used  by  Augustine,  that  the  doctrine 
itself  took  its  origin  with  him;  although  perfectly  synonymous 
expressions  occur  so  constantly  in  the  writings  of  the  earlier 
fathers.  Equally  destitute  of  foundation  is  the  assertion,  so 
often  made,  that  Augustine  was  driven  to  his  views  on  this  sub- 
ject by  his  controversy  with  Pelagius.     He  had  arrived  at  all 


ROMANS  5:  12—21.  237 

the  conclusions  on  which  he  ultimately  rested  at  least  ten  years 
before  any  controversy  on  the  subject.*     He  was  led  to  these 
results  by  the  study  of  the  scriptures,  and  by  his  own  personal 
experience.     His  earlier  views  on  the  intimately  related  doc- 
trines of  depravity,  ability,  dependence  and  grace,  were  all  mo- 
dified as  he  became  more  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  word 
of  God,  and  with  his  own  heart.     When  he  passed  what  Nean- 
der  calls  the  moral  crisis  of  his  religious  histor}^,  he  saw  clear- 
ly the  depth  of  the  evil  which  existed  within  him,  and  had  cor- 
responding views  of  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  the  grace  of 
God,  by  which  alone  this  evil  could  be  removed.    With  regard 
to  Pelagius,  the  case  was  just  the  reverse.     His  views  of  de- 
pravity being  superficial,  he  had  very  high  ideas  of  the  ability 
of  man,  and  very  low  conceptions  of  the   operations  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.     The  latter,  as  the  author  just  referred  to  strik- 
ingly remarks,  was  the  representative  and  champion  of  "  the 
general,  moral  and  religious  consciousness  of  men;"  the  other, 
"of  the  peculiar  nature  of  Christian  consciousness."     A  doc- 
trine which  enters  so  much  into  the  experience  of  all  Christians, 
and  which  has  maintained  its  ground  in  all  ages  and  sections  of 
the  church,  must  have  its  deep  foundations  in  the  testimony  of 
God,  and  the  consciousness  of  men. 

HI.  It  is  included  in  the  doctrines  already  stated,  that  man- 
kind have  had  a  fair  probation  in  Adam,  their  head  and  repre- 
sentative; and  that  we  are  not  to  consider  God  as  placing  them 
on  their  probation,  in  the  very  first  dawn  of  their  intellectual 
and  moral  existence,  and  under  circumstances  (or  "a  divine  con- 
stitution") which  secure  the  certainty  of  their  sinning.  Such  a 
probation  could  hardly  deserve  the  name. 

IV.  It  is  also  included  in  the  doctrine  of  this  portion  of  scrip- 
ture, that  mankind  is  an  unit,  in  the  sense  in  which  an  army,  in 
distinction  from  a  mob,  is  one;  or  as  a  nation,  a  community,  or 
a  family,  is  one,  in  opposition  to  a  mere  fortuitous  collection  of 
individuals.  Hence  the  frequent  and  extensive  transfer  of  the 
responsibility  and  consequences  of  the  acts  of  the  heads  of  these 
communities  to  their  several  members,  and  from  one  member 
to  others.     This  is  a  law  which  pervades  the  whole  moral  gov- 

*  See  Neandeh's  Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Religion  uiid  Kii'che,  Vol.  II. 
P.  3 ;  and  the  instructive  account  of  Augustine  and  Pelagius  inserted  in  the  Biblical 
Repository,  Vol.  III.,  translated  by  Mr.  Woods. 


238  ROMANS  5:  12—21. 

ernmcnt  and  providential  dispensations  of  God.  We  are  not 
like  the  separate  grains  of  wheat  in  a  measure;  but  links  in  a 
complicated  chain.  All  influence  the  destinj-  of  each;  and  each 
influences  the  destiny  of  all. 

V.  The  design  of  the  apostle  being  to  illustrate  the  nature 
and  to  confirm  the  certainty  of  our  justification,  it  is  the  lead- 
ing doctrine  of  this  passage,  that  our  acceptance  with  God  is 
founded  neither  on  our  faith  nor  our  good  works,  but  on  the 
obedience  or  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  to  us  is  a  free  gift. 
This  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  vs.  18,  19. 

VI.  The  dreadful  evil  of  sin  is  best  seen  in  the  fall  of  Adam, 
and  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  By  the  one  offence  of  one  man, 
what  a  waste  of  ruin  has  been  spread  over  the  whole  world! 
How  far  beyond  conception  the  misery  that  one  act  occasioned ! 
There  was  no  adequate  remedy  for  this  evil  but  the  death  of 
the  Son  of  God,  vs.  12,  15,  16,  &c. 

VII.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil, 
and  to  make  the  good  triumph  over  the  evil.  From  the  fall  has 
sprung  redemption,  and  from  redemption  results  which  eternity 
alone  can  disclose,  vs.  20,  21. 

Remarks. 

1.  Every  man  should  bow  down  before  God  under  the  hu- 
miliating consciousness  that  he  is  a  member  of  an  apostate 
race;  the  son  of  a  rebellious  parent;  born  estranged  from  God, 
and  exposed  to  his  displeasure,  vs.  12,  15,  IG,  &c. 

2.  Every  man  should  thankfully  embrace  the  means  provided 
for  his  restoration  to  the  divine  favour,  viz.  "  the  abundance  of 
grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  v.  17. 

3.  Those  that  perish,  perish  not  because  the  sin  of  Adam  has 
brought  them  under  condemnation;  nor  because  no  adequate 
provision  has  been  made  for  their  recovery;  but  because  they 
will  not  receive  the  offered  mercy,  v.  17. 

4.  For  those  who  refuse  the  proffered  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  insist  on  trusting  to  their  own  righteousness,  the  evil  of 
sin  and  God's  determination  to  punish  it,  show  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  hope;  while,  for  those  who  humbly  receive  this  gift, 
there  can  be  no  rational  ground  of  fear,  v.  15. 

5.  If  without  personal  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  all  men 
are  subject  to  death,  may  we  not  hope  that,  without  jiersona! 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  239 

acceptance  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  all  who  die  in  infancy 
are  saved  ? 

6.  We  should  never  yield  to  temptation  on  the  ground  that 
the  sin  to  which  we  are  solicited  appears  to  be  a  trifle  (merely 
eating  a  forbidden  fruit) ;  or  that  it  is  but  for  once.  Remember 
the  ONE  oifence  of  one  man.  How  often  has  a  man,  or  a  family 
been  ruined  for  ever  by  one  sin!  v.  12. 

7.  Our  dependence  on  Jesus  Christ  is  entire,  and  our  obliga- 
tions to  him  are  infinite.  It  is  through  his  righteousness, 
without  the  shadow  of  merit  on  our  own  part,  that  we  are  justi- 
fied. He  alone  was  adequate  to  restore  the  ruins  of  the  fall. 
From  those  ruins  he  has  built  up  a  living  temple,  a  habitation 
of  God  through  the  Spirit. 

8.  We  must  experience  the  operation  of  the  law,  in  producing 
the  knowledge  and  conviction  of  sin,  in  order  to  be  prepared 
for  the  appreciation  and  reception  of  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
church  and  the  world  were  prepared  by  the  legal  dispensation 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  gracious  dispensation  of  the  New, 
V.  20. 

9.  We  should  open  our  hearts  to  the  large  prospects  of  purity 
and  blessedness  presented  in  the  gospel;  the  victory  of  grace 
over  sin  and  death,  which  is  to  be  consummated  in  the  triumph 
of  true  religion,  and  in  the  eternal  salvation  of  those  multitudes 
out  of  every  tribe  and  kindred  which  no  man  can  number,  v.  21. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Contents. 
As  the  gospel  reveals  the  only  effectual  method  of  justifica- 
tion, so  also  it  alone  can  secure  the  sanctification  of  men.  To 
exhibit  this  truth  is  the  object  of  this  and  the  following  chapter. 
The  sixth  is  partly  argumentative,  and  partly  exhortatory. 
(  In  verses  1 — 11,  the  apostle  shows  how  unfounded  is  the  ob- 
jection, that  gratuitous  justification  leads  to  the  indulgence  of 
sin.  In  vs.  12 — 23,  he  exhorts  Christians  to  live  agreeably  to 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel;  and  presents  various  con- 
siderations adapted  to  secure  their  obedience  to  this  exhorta- 
tion. 


240  ROMANS  6:  1—11. 


CHAP.  6:  1—11. 

t^nalysis. 
The  most  common,  the  most  plausible,  and  yet  the  most  un- 
founded objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  is, 
that  it  allows  men  to  live  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound.  This 
objection  arises  from  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  and 
of  the  nature  and  means  of  sanctification.  It  is  so  preposterous 
in  the  eyes  of  an  enlightened  believer,  that  Paul  deals  with  it 
rather  by  exclamations  at  its  absurdity,. than  with  logical  argu- 
ments. The  main  idea  of  this  section  is,  that  such  is  the  nature 
of  the  believer's  union  with  Christy  that  his  living  in  sin  is  not 
merely  an  inconsistency,  but  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  much 
so  as  speaking  of  a  live  dead  man,  or  a  good  bad  one.  Union 
Avith  Christ,  being  the  only  source  of  holiness,  cannot  be  the 
source  of  sin.  In  v.  1  the  apostle  presents  the  objection.  In 
V.  2  he  declares  it  to  be  unfounded,  and  exclaims  at  its  absurdity. 
In  vs.  3,  4  he  exhibits  the  true  nature  and  design  of  Christianity, 
as  adapted  and  intended  to  produce  newness  of  life.  In  vs. 
5 — 7  he  shows  that  such  is  the  nature  of  union  with  Christ, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  share  the  benefits  of  his 
death,  without  being  conformed  to  his  life.  Such  being  the 
case,  he  shows,  vs.  8 — 11,  that  as  Christ's  death  on  account  of 
sin  was  for  once,  never  to  be  repeated;  and  his  life,  a  life  de- 
voted to  God;  so  our  separation  from  sin  is  final,  and  our  life,  a 
life  consecrated  to  God, 

Commentary. 

(1)  JVhat  shall  we  say  then?  What  inference  is  to  be 
drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  acceptance  of  sinners, 
or  justification  without  works  by  faith  in  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  ? 

Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  f^race  may  abound?  i.  e.  be 
more  conspicuously  displayed.  The  form  in  which  the  objec- 
tion to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  here  presented,  is  evidently 
borrowed  from  tlic  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Paul  had 
there  spoken  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel  being  the  more  con- 
spicuous and  abundant  in  proportion  to  the  evils  which  it 
removes.     It  is  no  fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  God  has 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  241 

brought  so  much  good  out  of  the  fall  and  sinfulness  of  men, 
that  they  may  continue  in  sin.  Neither  can  it  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  he  accepts  of  sinners,  on  the  ground  of  the  merit 
of  Christ,  instead  of  their  own  (which  is  the  way  in  which 
grace  abounds),  that  they  may  sin  without  restraint. 

(2)  God  forbid,  in  the  Greek,  let  it  not  be.  Paul's  usual 
mode  of  expressing  denial  and  abhorrence.  Such  an  inference 
is  not  to  be  thought  of.  Hoio  shall  ive,  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  ?  How  can  good  men  be  bad  men  ? 
or,  how  can  the  dead  be  alive  ?  It  is  a  contradiction  and  an 
absurdity,  that  those  who  are  dead  to  sin  should  live  in  it.  There 
are  two  points  to  be  here  considered.  The  first  is  the  sense  in 
which  Christians  are  said  to  be  dead  to  sin;  and  the  second,  the 
proof  (vs.  3,  4)  that  such  is  really  the  case  with  all  true  be- 
lievers. The  words  rendered  dead  to  sin,  may  mean  either 
dead  as  it  respects  sin,  or  dead  on  account  of  sin;  see  this 
latter  force  of  the  dative  in  ch.  5:  15.  11:  20,  &c.  In  favour  of 
the  second  interpretation  it  is  urged,  1.  That  this  phrase  must 
express  the  same  idea  with  the  subsequent  clauses,  buried  with 
him,  V.  4;  associated  in  his  death,  v.  5;  dead  with  Christ, 
V.  8,  2.  That  it  must  have  this  meaning  in  v.  1 0,  where  it 
is  said  of  Christ  he  died  unto  sin,  i.  e.  on  account  of  sin. 
3.  The  other  interpretation,  '  How  shall  we,  who  have  re- 
nounced sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ?'  is  not  suited  to  the  apos- 
tle's object;  because  it  does  not  give  any  adequate  answer  to  the 
objection  presented  in  v.  1.  In  order  to  answer  that  objection 
it  was  necessary  to  show,  not  merely  that  the  believer  had  re- 
nounced sin,  but  that  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification 
effectually  secures  this  renunciation.  According  to  the  second 
interpretation,  this  answer  is  plain  and  conclusive.  '  How  shall 
we,  who  have  died  on  account  of  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ? 
If  we  are  regarded  and  treated  by  God,  in  virtue  of  our  union 
with  Christ,  and  if  we  regard  ourselves  as  having  suffered  and 
died  with  him  on  account  of  sin,  we  cannot  but  regard  it  as 
hateful  and  deserving  of  punishment.' '^ 

The  objections  to  this  interpretation,  however,  are  serious. 
1.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  common  and  familiar  import  of 

*  The  reader  may  see  this  view  of  the  passage  defended  at  length  by  SxonB, 
Brief  an  die  Hcliraer,  p.  515;  and  by  Fxatt,  on  the  passage  itself,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  this  Epistle. 

31 


242  ROMANS  6:  1—11. 

the  expression  to  he  dead  to  any  thing,  wliich  occurs  frequent- 
ly in  the  New  Testament,  as  Gal.  2:  19,  "dead  to  the  law;" 
1  Pet.  2:  24,  "  dead  to  sins;"  Rom.  7:  4,  &c.  &c.  In  all  cases 
the  meaning  is  to  he  free  from.  Sin  has  lost  its  power  over 
the  believer,  as  sensible  objects  are  not  able  to  affect  the  dead. 
2.  The  opposite  phrase  to  live  therein,  requires  this  interpre- 
tation. 3.  The  object  of  the  apostle  does  not  require  that  a 
formal  argumentative  answer  should  be  supposed  to  commence 
in  this  verse.  He  simply  denies  the  justice  of  the  inference 
from  his  doctrine  stated  in  v.  1,  and  asks  how  it  is  possible  it 
should  be  correct  ?  How  can  a  Christian,  which  is  but  another 
name  for  a  holy  man,  or  one  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer 
therein  ? 

(3)  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  ns  as  were  haptised 
into  Jesus  Christ  ivere  baptised  into  his  death  ?  In  this  and 
the  following  verse  we  have  something  more  in  the  form  of 
argument  in  answer  to  the  objection  in  question.  The  apostle 
reminds  his  readers  that  the  very  design  of  Christianity  was  to 
deliver  men  from  sin;  that  every  one  who  embraced  it,  em- 
braced it  for  this  very  object;  and,  therefore,  it  was  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms  to  suppose  that  any  should  come  to  Christ  to  be 
delivered  from  sin  in  order  that  they  might  live  in  it.  And^ 
besides  this,  it  is  clearly  intimated,  that  such  is  not  only  the 
design  of  the  gospel,  and  the  object  for  which  it  is  embraced  by 
all  who  cordially  receive  it,  but  also  that  the  result  or  necessary 
effect  of  union  with  Christ  is  a  participation  in  the  benefits  of 
his  death. 

JVere  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  i)hrase  to  he  bap- 
tised into  any  one,  the  word  (s/V)  rendered  into  has  its  usual 
force  as  indicating  the  object,  design  or  result  for  which  any 
thing  is  done.  To  be  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ,  or  unto  JSIoses, 
or  Paul,  therefore,  means  to  be  baptised  in  order  to  be  united  to 
Christ,  or  Moses,  or  Paul,  as  their  followers,  the  recipients  of 
their  doctrines,  and  expectants  of  the  blessings  wliich  they  have 
to  bestow;  see  Matt.  28: 19.  1  Cor.  10:2.  1  Cor.  1 :  13.  In  like 
manner,  in  the  expression  haptised  into  his  deaili,  the  preposi- 
tion expresses  the  design  and  the  result.  The  meaning,  tlicrcfore, 
is,  'we  were  baptised  in  order  that  we  should  die  with  him,'  i.  e. 
that  we  should  be  united  to  him  in  his  death,  and  partakers  of 
its  benefits.     Thus  "  baptism  unto  repentance,"  Matt.  3:  11,  is 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  243 

baptism  in  order  to  repentance;  "baptism  unto  the  remission  of 
sins,"  Mark  1:  4,  that  remission  of  sins  may  be  obtained;  "bap- 
tised into  one  body,"  1  Cor.  12:  13,  i.  e.  that  we  might  become 
one  body,  &c.  The  idea  of  the  whole  verse,  therefore,  is, '  That 
as  many  as  have  been  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ,  have  become 
intimately  united  with  him,  so  that  they  are  conformed  to  him 
in  his  death,  and  participate  in  the  blessings  for  which  he  died.' 
Much  to  the  same  effect  the  apostle  says,  Gal.  3:  27,  "  As  many 
as  have  been  baptised  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ,"  i.  e. 
have  become  intimately  united  to  him.  Paul  uses  the  expres- 
sion baptised  into  Christ,  not  for  the  mere  external  or  formal 
profession  of  the  religion  of  the  gospel,  but  for  the  cordial  re- 
ception of  it,  of  which  submission  to  the  rite  of  baptism  was 
the  public  and  appointed  expression.  The  meaning,  therefore, 
is,  that  those  who  have  sincerely  embraced  Jesus  Christ,  have 
done  it  so  as  to  be  united  to  him,  conformed  to  his  image  and  the 
design  for  which  he  died.  Christ  died  in  order  that  he  might 
destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  1  John  3:  8;  to  save  his  people 
from  their  sins,  and  to  purify  to  himself  a  peculiar  people  zeal- 
ous of  good  works,  Tit.  2:  14.  Every  Christian,  Iherefore, 
who  becomes  a  follower  of  Christ,  does  so  for  the  very  purpose 
of  being  delivered  from  sin. 

(4)  Therefore  we  are  buried  by  baptism  into  death,  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up,  &c.  '  Such  being  the  nature  and 
design  of  the  gospel,  if  we  accept  of  Christ  at  all,  it  is  that  we 
should  die  with  him;  i.  e.  that  we  should  attain  the  object  for 
which  he  died,  viz.  deliverance  from  sin;'  or,  to  use  the  apos- 
tle's figurative  expression,  that  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

The  words  into  death  are  evidently  to  be  connected  with  the 
word  baptism  {^ 0.1:7 iti^i^a.  slg  <rov  Savarov);  it  is  bi/  a  baptism  unto 
death  that  we  are  united  to  Christ,  as  stated  in  the  preceding 
verse.  We  are  said  to  be  buried  ivith  Christ;  i.  e.  we  are  effect- 
ually united  to  him  in  his  death.  The  same  idea  is  expressed 
in  V.  S,  by  saying  "  we  are  dead  with  him;"  and  in  v.  5,  by 
saying,  we  are  "  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death." 
It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  suppose  that  there  is  any  allusion 
to  the  mode  of  baptism,  as  though  that  rite  was  compared  to  a 
burial.  No  such  allusion  can  be  supposed  in  the  next  verse, 
where  we  are  said  to  be  planted  whh  him.    Baptism  is,  through- 


244  ROMANS  6:  1—11, 

out  this  passage,  as  in  Gal.  3:  27,  taken  for  the  reception  of 
Christ,  of  which  it  is  the  appointed  acknowledgement.  The  point 
of  the  comparison  is  not  between  our  baptism  and  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ;  but  between  our  death  to  sin  and 
rising  to  holiness;  and  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Re- 
deemer. As  Paul  had  expressed,  in  v.  2,  the  idea  of  the  free- 
dom of  believers  from  sin,  by  the  figurative  phrase  "  dead  to 
sin,"  he  carries  the  figure  consistently  through;  and  says,  that 
by  our  reception  of  Christ  we  became  united  to  him  in  such  a 
way  as  to  die  as  he  died,  and  to  rise  as  he  rose.  As  he  died 
unto  sin  (for  its  destruction),  so  do  we;  and  as  he  rose  unto  new- 
ness of  life,  so  do  we. 

Christ  is  said  to  have  been  raised  up  hy  the  glory  of  the 
Father.  Some  would  render  these  words  (6ia  ^ogris)  as  though 
the  accusative,  instead  of  the  genitive,  was  used,  on  account  of 
the  glory,  &c.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  usage.  They 
either  are  equivalent  to  glorious  Father,  see  ch.  1:  23,  25;  or 
the  word  rendered  glory  may  be  used  for  power  or  might,  as 
in  the  Septuagint,  Is.  12:  2.  45:  24.  Compare  Col.  1:  11.* 
Even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  These 
words  express  the  design  for  which  we  receive  Clirist  or  were 
baptised  unto  him;  it  is  that  we  should  exhibit  that  new  life 
which  we  receive  from  him,  and  which  is  analogous  to  his 
own,  inasmuch  as  it  is  unending  and  devoted  unto  God;  see  vs. 
9,  10,  where  this  idea  is  more  fully  expressed. 

(5)  For  if  ive  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  &c.  As  the  preceding  verse  had  declared  the 
object  of  our  union  with  Christ  to  be  newness  of  life;  this 
verse  exhibits  the  necessary  connexion  between  the  means  and 
the  end,  by  showing  that  we  cannot  be  united  to  Christ  in  his 
death,  without  being  united  to  him  also  in  his  resurrection. 

For  if  we  have  been  planted  together.  The  original  word 
here  used  means  properly  connate,  born  together;  but  it  is 
applied  variously  to  things  intimately  united,  as  things  growing 
together,  Amos  9: 13,  Zacharia  11:2,  in  the  Septuagint;  com- 
pare Luke  7:8;  to  branches  of  the  same  tree,  limbs  of  the  same 
body,  &c.  &c.     The  idea,  therefore,  here  expressed  by  it,  is  an 


*  Per  glorium  Patris.     Id  est  insiffncm  virtutcm,  qua  se  vcre  gloriosum  de- 
claravit,  et  veluti  gloriae  suae  inagnificcntiani  illustravit. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  6:  1—11,  245 

intimate  and  vital  union  with  Christ,  such  as  exists  between  a 
vine  and  its  branches.*     Compare  John  15:  1 — S. 

In  the  likeness  of  his  death;  i.  e.  in  a  death  similar  to  his. 
We  die  as  he  died.  This  results  from  the  fact  of  our  intimate 
union  with  him.  Hence,  in  v.  6,  we  are  said  "  to  be  crucified 
with  him;"  and  in  v.  8,  "  to  be  dead  with  him."  If  we  are  so 
united  to  Christ  as  to  die  with  him  (i.  e.  to  obtain  the  benefits  of 
his  death),  we  also  die  as  he  died.  This  accounts  for  the  intro- 
duction of  the  word  likeness,  expressive  of  a  comparison  between 
our  death  to  sin  and  the  death  of  Christ.  But  we  experience 
this  similar,  or  spiritual  death,  only  because  of  the  union  with 
Christ,  in  virtue  of  which  his  death  was,  in  the  sight  of  God, 
equivalent  with  our  death.! 

JVe  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.  The 
future  tense  shall,  does  not  here  express  obligation  merely,  but 
also  and  mainly  the  certainty  of  the  result.  '  If  united  to  Christ 
in  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  his  resurrection.  That  is,  we 
shall  experience  a  resurrection  similar  to  his,  viz.  an  entrance 
on  a  new,  glorious  and  perpetual  life.'  That  a  spiritual  resui'- 
rection  is  here  principally  intended,  seems  very  plain,  both  from 
the  preceding  and  succeeding  context.  And  yet  the  idea  of 
the  future  resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  to  be  entirely  ex- 
cluded. Paul,  in  ch.  8:  11,  brings  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
forward  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  our  union  with  Christ, 
or  of  our  having  the  Spirit  of  life  dwelling  in  us.  Tlie  meaning 
probably  is,  that  if  we  are  true  Christians,  baptised  into  the 
death  of  Christ,  united  and  conformed  to  him  in  this  respect,  the 
necessary  result  will  be  that  tlie  life  of  Christ  will  be  manifested 
in  us  by  a  holy  and  devoted  life  here,  by  a  life  of  glorious  im- 
mortality, and  by  the  resurrection  of  the  body  hereafter.  All 
this  is  included  in  the  life  consequent  on  our  union  with  Clirist. 


*  Insitio  non  tantum  exempli  conformitatem  designat,  sed  arcanam  conjunctio- 
nem,  per  quara  cum  ipso  coaluimus,  ita  ut  nos  Spiritu  suo  vegetans,  ejus  virtuteiii 
in  nos  transfundat.  Ergo  ut  surculus  communem  habel  vitae  et  mortis  conditionem 
cum  arbore,  in  quam  insertus  est:  ita  vitae  Cliristi  non  minus,  quam  et  mortis  par- 
ticipes  nos  esse  consentaneum  est. — Caltiit. 

■j-  Nihil  aliud  voluit  notavc  apostolus,  quam  efficaciam  illam  mortis  tHuisti,  quae 
in  carnis  nostrae  interitu  sc  excrit;  alteram  quoque  resurreetionis,  ad  rcnovandam 
in  nobis  meliorem  Spiritus  naturam. — Caltin. 


246  ROMANS  6:  1—11. 

((])  Knnwuis;  this,  that  our  old  man  loaa  crucified luith  him, 
&c.  This  verse  is  eithei'  an  amplification  or  confirmation  of  the 
preceding.  '  If  united  with  tlie  Lord  Jesus,'  says  the  apostle, 
'  in  his  death,  we  shall  i)e  in  his  life,  for  wc  know  that  we  are 
crucified  with  him  for  this  veiy  reason,  viz.  that  the  body  of 
sin  might  be  destroyed.'  In  this  view  of  the  passage  it  is  little 
more  than  an  amplification  of  v.  5.  But  it  may  also  be  viewed 
thus,  '  We  are  sure  we  shall  be  conformed  to  the  life  of  Christ, 
because  we  know  that  our  old  corruptions  have  been  destroyed 
by  his  death,  in  order  that  we  should  no  longer  serve  them.' 
This  verse  then  assigns  the  reason  for  the  assertion  contained 
in  the  last  clause  of  the  fifth. 

The  phrase  old  man,  may  mean  either  our  corru])tions,  or 
ourselves,  our  former  selves.  According  to  the  latter  meaning, 
Paul  would  say,  '  TVe,  our  former  selves,  were  crucified  with 
Christ;'  according  to  the  former,  '  Our  corrupt  affections  were 
destroyed,  &c.'  The  apostle  generally  uses  the  expression  in 
this  sense,  '•  Put  ye  off  the  old  man  which  is  corrupt,  &c.," 
Eph.  4:  22;  "  Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  ye  have  put  off  the 
old  man  with  his  deeds,  and  have  put  on  the  new  man,"  Col. 
3:9;  compare  Rom.  7:  22,  where  the  sanctified  affections  arc 
called  the  inivard  man;  Eph.  3:  16.  4:  24.  According  to  all 
these  passages,  the  old  man  is  the  old,  i.  e.  tlie  original  and 
natural  state  of  the  heart.  As  the  scriptures,  however,  describe 
the  moral  change  of  the  heart'  as  a  new  birth,  and  speak  of 
tliose  tluis  ])orn  again  as  new  creatures,  2  Cor.  5:17.  Gal.  6: 
15,  so  the  phrase  in  question  may  designate  men  considered  as 
in  their  unrenewed  state.  The  old  ma)i  would  then  mean  our 
former  selves,  'We,  as  sinners,  were  crucified  with  Clirist  that 
sin  might  be  destroyed.'  This,  allliough  not  so  agreeal)le  to 
.scri])t.ui-al  usage,  seems  better  suited  to  the  context.  There  is 
])robaldy  no  alhision  in  the  use  of  the  word  crucified,  either  to 
tlie  slowness  or  ])ainfulness  of  that  jjarticular  mode  of  death,  as 
thougli  the  apostle  meant  to  intimate  that  the  destruction  of  sin 
was  a  gradual  and  painful  process.  This  indeed  is  true,  but  is 
not  here  expressed.  The  simple  expression  "  dead  with  him," 
is  substituted  for  this  word  in  v.  8,  and  in  Gal.  2:  20,  "I  am 
crucified  with  Christ,"  contains  no  sucli  allusion.  It  is  more 
jM-obablc,  as  Calvin  remarks,  that  the  word  is  used  to  intimate 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  247 

that  it  is  solely  in  virtue  of  our  participation  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  that  we  are  delivered  from  the  power  of  sin.* 

That  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed.  The  expression 
body  of  sin  is  probahly  a  mere  paraphrase  for  sin  itself,  see 
Col.  2:11;  yet  it  is  no  doubt  used  with  design,  as  sin  is  spoken 
of  as  a  person  that  dies,  whose  members  we  are  to  mortify,  and 
whom  we  are  no  longer  to  serve.  The  destruction  of  sin  results 
from  the  death  of  Clirist,  inasmuch  as  we  are  thereby  recon- 
ciled to  God,  and  brought  under  the  influence  of  all  the  con- 
siderations which  flow  from  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  see 
V.  14;  and  because  his  death  secures  for  us  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  is  the  source  of  all  holiness,  ch.  8:  3,  4,  9. 

That  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  si)i,  i.  e.  be  slaves  to 
it.  This  clause  expresses  at  once  the  result  and  design  of  the 
destruction  of  the  power  of  sin.  Paul's  whole  argument  then 
in  these  two  verses  is,  '  Such  is  the  nature  of  our  union  with 
Christ,  that  if  we  partake  of  the  benefits  of  his  death,  and  are 
conformed  to  him  in  this  respect,  we  shall  certainly  be  con- 
formed to  his  life;  because  by  his  death  the  power  of  sin  is 
destroyed.' 

(7)  For  he  that  is  dead  is  free  from  sin.  The  meaning  of 
this  verse  is  somewhat  doubtful.  It  may  be  considered  as  merely 
a  statement  of  a  general  truth,  designed  for  the  illustration  and 
confirmation  of  what  Paul  had  just  said.  <  Death  puts  a  final 
stop  to  all  activity  in  this  world.  He  that  dies  is  entirely 
separated  from  all  former  pursuits  and  objects;  they  have  lost 
all  power  over  him,  and  he  all  interest  in  them.  To  be  dead  to 
sin,  therefore,  expresses  a  full  and  final  separation  from  it.'  Or 
the  meaning  may  be  this,  '  What  has  just  been  said  is  true,  for 
he  that  is  dead  with  Christ  is  judicially  free  from  sin;  its  power 
and  authority  are  destroyed,  as  efiectually  as  the  authority  of  a 
husband  over  his  wife  (ch.  7:  3,  4),  or  of  a  master  over  his 
slave  (v.  18),  is  destroyed  by  death.'  There  are  three  ways, 
therefore,  in  which  this  verse  may  be  explained.  1.  As  ex- 
pressing a  mere  general  truth.  2.  By  supplying,  after  the  word 
dead,  the  words  to  sin,  '  He  that  is  dead  to  sin,  is  free  from  it.' 
3.  By  supplying  the  words  ivith  Christ,  '  He  that  is  dead  with 

*  Ac  noniinatim  allusit  ad  cnicoin,  quo  expressius  indicarct  noii  aliunde  nos 
moililicari,  quaiii  ex  tjuH  mortis  participatione. — Calvin. 


248  ROMANS  6:  1—11. 

Christ  is  free  from  sin.'  This  hist  method  seems  the  preferable 
one,  on  account  of  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  vs.  6,  8,  "  He 
that  is  dead  (with  Christ)  is  free  from  sin,  for  if  we  be  dead 
with  Christ,  we  believe  we  shall  also  live  with  him." 

Is  free  from  sin;  literally  is  justified  from  sin.     In  sup- 
port of  the  former  of  these  versions  reference  is  made  to  the 
apocryphal  book  Sirach  26:  29.  Acts  13:  39;  compare  also  v. 
18  of  this  chapter,  and   1  Peter  4:  1.     But  although  this  ren- 
dering is  possible,  there  appears  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for 
departing  from  the  proper  and  almost  uniform  meaning  of  the 
original  word.     Is  Justified  from  sin  means,  is  pardoned,  is 
freed  from  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin   by  justification. 
This  verse  then  assigns  a  very  important  reason  for  the  truth 
w^hich  the  apostle  had  so  frequently  stated,  viz.  that  the  be- 
liever could  not  live  in  sin.     '  For  he  that  is  dead  with  Christ? 
is  thereby  justified,  and  freed  from  the  punishment  of  sin;  he  is* 
thus  reconciled  to  God;  and  as  reconciliation  and  communion! 
with  God  are  the  true  sources  of  holiness,  he  is  also  freed  from  | 
sin.'     This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  next  verse,  in  ' 
which  our  dying  with  Christ  is  represented  as  securing  our 
living  with  him.     See  Gal.  2:  19,  20.  6:  14.  Col.  2:3.  3:  3.  1 
Peter  4:1.     In  all  these  passages,  with  more  or  less  distinctness, 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  believers  dying  with  him,  are  repre- 
sented as  the  ground  and  cause  of  their  living  unto  God. 

Verses  8 — 11.  These  verses  contain  the  application  of  the 
truth  taught  in  the  preceding  passage.  '  If  we  are  dead  with 
Christ,  we  shall  share  in  his  life.  If  he  lives,  we  shall  live  also. 
As  his  life  is  perpetual,  it  secures  the  continued  supplies  of  life 
to  all  his  members.  Death  has  no  more  any  dominion  over  him. 
Having  died  unto,  or  on  account  of  sin  once,  he  now  ever  lives 
to,  and  with  God.  ^  His  people,  therefore,  must  be  conformed 
to  him;  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God.'  This  pas- 
sage does  not  contain  a  mere  comparison  between  the  literal 
death  and  resun-ection  of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  death  and 
resurrection  of  believers,  blit  it  exhibits  the  connexion  between 
the  death  and  life  of  the  Redeemer  and  the  sanctification  of 
his  people. 

(8)  Noiv  if  we  he  dead  icit/i  Christ,  &c.  If  the  truth  stated 
in  tiie  preceding  verses  be  admitted,  viz.  that  our  union  with 
Christ  is  such  that  his  death  secures  our  deliverance  from  the 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  219 

penalty  and  power  of  sin,  we  believe  we  shall  also  live  with 
him.  That  is,  we  are  sure  that  the  consequences  of  his  death 
are  not  merely  negative,  i.  e.  not  simply  deliverance  from  evil, 
moral  and  physical,  but  also  a  participation  in  his  life.  To  live 
with  Christ,  therefore,  includes  two  ideas,  association  with 
him,  and  shnilarity  to  him.  We  partake  of  his  life,  and  conse- 
'quently  our  life  is  like  his.  In  like  manner,  since  we  die  with 
him,  we  die  as  he  died.  So  too  when  we  are  said  to  reign 
with  him,  to  he  glorified  together,  both  these  ideas  are  included; 
see  ch.  8:  17,  and  many  similar  passages.  The  life  here  spoken 
of  is  that  "  eternal  life"  which  believers  are  said  to  possess  even 
in  this  world;  see  John  3:  36.  5:  24;  and  which  is  manifested 
here  by  devotion  to  God,  and  hereafter  in  the  purity  and  bless- 
edness of  heaven.  It  includes,  therefore,  all  the  consequences 
of  redemption.  We  are  not  to  consider  the  apostle  as  merely 
running  a  parallel  between  the  natural  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  his  people, 
as  has  already  been  remarked,  but  as  showing  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  union  to  him  in  his  death,  we  must  die  as  he  died,  and 
live  as  he  lives.  That  is,  that  the  effect  of  his  death  is  to  destroy 
the  power  of  sin;  and  the  result  of  his  living  is  the  communi- 
cation and  preservation  of  divine  life  to  all  who  are  connected 
with  him.  This  being  the  case,  the  objection  stated  in  v.  1  of 
this  chapter  is  seen  to  be  entirely  unfounded.  This  life  of 
Christ  to  which  we  are  conformed  is  described  in  the  following 
verses,  first  as  perpetual,  and,  secondly,  as  devoted  unto  God. 

(9)  Knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth 
no  m,ore.  The  perpetuity  of  Christ's  life  is  presented,  1.  As 
the  ground  of  assurance  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  life  of  be- 
lievers. We  shall  partake  of  the  life  of  Christ,  i.  e.  of  the 
spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of  redemption,  because  he  ever 
lives  to  make  intercession  for  us,  and  to  grant  us  those  supplies 
of  grace  which  we  need;  see  ch.  5:  10.  John  14:  19.  1  Cor. 
15:  23,  &c.  &c.  As  death  has  no  more  dominion  over  him, 
there  is  no  ground  of  apprehension  that  our  supplies  of  life  shall 
be  cut  off.  This  verse,  therefore,  is  introduced  as  the  ground 
of  the  declaration  "  we  shall  live  with  him,"  at  the  close  of 
V.  8.  2.  The  perpetuity  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  one  of  the 
points  in  which  our  life  is  to  be  conformed  to  his. 

(10)  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once,  &c.    This 


250  ROMANS  6:  1—11. 

verse  is  an  amplification  and  explanation  of  the  preceding. 
Christ's  life  is  perpetual,  inasmuch  as  his  dying  unto  sin  was 
for  once  only;  but  as  he  lives,  he  lives  forever  in  the  presence, 
and  to  the  glory  of  God.  It  is  evident  that  Christ's  dying  unto 
sin  must  be  understood  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which 
we  are  said  to  die  unto  sin.  The  dative  (t^  o.[i.a^T'\a.)  probably 
here,  as  so  often  elsewhere,  expresses  the  ground  or  reason  for 
which  any  thing  is  done;  see  on  v.  2,  'He  died  on  account  of 
sin.'*  The  phrase,  therefore,  is  to  be  understood  as  those  in 
Gal.  1:  4.  Rom.  4:  25,  &c.  &c.,  where  he  is  said  to  have  died 
for  sin,  i.  e.  for  its  expiation  and  destruction.  This  sacrifice,, 
unlike  the  impotent  offerings  under  the  law,  was  so  efficacious 
that  it  never  need  be  repeated;  and  therefore  Christ,  having 
once  suffered  death,  is  never  again  to  be  subject  to  its  dominion, 
Heb.  9:  28.  1  Pet.  3:  18. 

But  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  The  structure 
of  this  sentence  is  antithetical,  agreeably  to  Paul's  manner,  see 
on  ch.  5:  10;  and  this  accounts  for  the  form  of  the  expression 
he  liveth  unto  God,  which  is  opposed  to  the  phrase  he  died 
unto  sin.  Christ  lives  to  the  glory  of  God  and  in  communion 
with  him.  This  is  the  second  point  in  which  our  life  is  to  be 
conformed  to  his.  It  is  to  be  not  only  perpetual,  i.  e.  without 
relapse  into  spiritual  death,  but  also  devoted  to  the  service  and 
enjoyment  of  God. 

(11)  This  verse  contains  an  inference  from  the  preceding 
discussion,  and  an  application  of  it  to  the  case  of  Christians. 
If  Christ  has  died  for  the  destruction  and  expiation  of  sin,  and 
if  all  who  belong  to  him  are  united  to  him  in  his  death  so  as 
to  have  their  sins  expiated  and  destroyed ;  and  if,  moreover, 
their  head,  in  whom  they  live,  has  risen  to  a  new  and  endless 
life  of  glory  and  holiness,  then  let  Christians  view  their  relation 
to  Christ  in  its  true  light,  and  live  accordingly. 

Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  as  dead  indeed  unto 
sin,  &c.t  That  is,  regard  yourselves  as  having  died  with  Christ 
for  deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  see  vs.  5,  6,8;  and  also  for 
the  destruction  of  its  power,  see  vs.  6,  7.    But  alive  unto  God. 


*   Or  it  may  be  the  dativns  detnmenti.     He  ilicd  for  the  destraotion  of  .sin. 
I  The  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  and  several  of  the  ancient  versions  and  fathers  omit 
the  word  £(vai  in  the  middle  of  this  verse,  and  the  words  tw  xufiw  Tjfiwv  at  tlie  end. 


ROMANS  6:  1—11.  251 

Let  believers  consider  themselves  partakers  not  only  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  but  also  of  his  life.  As  his  life  is  perpetual  and  de- 
voted unto  God,  so  also  must  theirs  be.  Through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.  It  is  through  Christ  that  we  die  unto  sin,  and  live 
unto  God.  It  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  who  liveth  in  us, 
Gal.  2:19.  The  words  rendered  through  Christ  may  be  more 
literally  translated  in  Christ,  i.  e.  it  is  in  virtue  of  union  with 
him  that  we  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  God.* 

Doctrines. 

1.  Truth  cannot  lead  to  unholiness.  If  a  doctrine  encourages 
sin  it  must  be  false,  vs.  1,2. 

2.  There  can  be  no  greater  contradiction  and  absurdity  than 
for  one  who  lives  in  sin  to  claim  to  be  a  Christian,  v.  2. 

3.  Antinomianism  is  not  only  an  error;  it  is  a  falsehood  and 
a  slander.  It  pronounces  valid  the  very  objection  against  the 
gospel  which  Paul  pronounces  a  contradiction  and  absurdity, 
and  which  he  evidently  regards  as  a  fatal  objection,  were  it  well 
founded,  vs.  2,  3,  4,  &c. 

4.  Baptism  includes  a  profession  of  the  religion  taught  by 
him  in  whose  name  we  are  baptised,  and  an  obligation  to  obey 
his  laws,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  The  grand  design  of  Christianity  is  the  destruction  of  sin. 
When  sincerely  embraced,  therefore,  it  is  with  a  view  to  this 
end,  V.  3. 

6.  The  source  of  the  believer's  holiness  is  his  union  with 
Christ,  by  which  his  reconciliation  to  God,  and  his  participation 
of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  secured,  vs.  4,  6. 

7.  The  fact  that  Christ  lives  is  sufficient  security  that  his  peo- 
ple shall  live  in  holiness  here  and  in  glory  hereafter,  v.  S. 

8.  The  only  proper  evidence  that  we  are  the  partakers  of  the 
benefits  of  the  death  and. life  of  Christ,  is  our  dying  to  sin  and 
living  to  God,  v.  11,  and  the  whole  section. 

9.  The  gospel,  which  teaches  the  only  true  method  of  justi- 
fication, is  the  only  system  which  can  secure  the  sanctification 
of  men.  This  is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  this  section,  but  it  is 
the  leading  truth  of  this  and  the  following  chapter. 

*  Caetcrum  rctincrc  malui  verba  Pauli :  In  Cliristo  Jesii,  quam  cum  Erasmo 
vertcre:  Per  Christum,  quia  illo  motlo  melius  exprimitur  insitio  ilia,  quae  nos 
unum  cum  Cliristo  fucit. — Calyis. 


252  ROMANS  G:  12— 23, 

Remarks. 

1.  As  the  most  prominent  doctrinal  truth  of  this  passage  is^ 
that  the  death  of  Christ  secures  the  destruction  of  sin  where- 
ever  it  secures  its  pardon;  so  the  most  obvious  practical  infer- 
ence is,  that  it  is  vain  to  hope  for  the  latter  benefit,  unless  we 
labour  for  the  full  attainment  of  the  former,  vs.  2 — 11. 

2.  For  a  professing  Christian  to  live  in  sin,  is  not  only  to 
give  positive  evidence  that  he  is  not  a  real  Christian,  but  it  is 
to  misrepresent  and  slander  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  to 
the  dishonour  of  religion  and  the  injury  of  the  souls  of  men, 
vs.  2—11. 

3.  Instead  of  holiness  being  in  order  to  pardon,  pardon  is  in 
order  to  holiness.  This  is  the  mystery  of  evangelical  morals, 
V.  4,  &c. 

4.  The  only  effectual  method  of  gaining  the  victory  over  our 
sins  is  to  live  in  communion  with  Jesus  Christ;  to  regard  his 
death  as  securing  the  pardon  of  sin,  as  restoring  us  to  the  di- 
vine favour,  and  as  procuring  for  us  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  those,  Avho  thus  look  to  Christ  not  only  for  par- 
don but  holiness,  that  are  successful  in  sul)duing  sin;  while  the 
legalist  remains  its  slave,  vs.  6,  8. 

5.  It  is  a  consolation  to  the  believer  to  know  tliat  if  he  has 
evidence  of  being  noio  a  Christian,  he  may  be  sure  that  he  shall 
live  with  Christ.  As  long  and  as  surely  as  the  head  lives,  so 
long  and  so  surely  must  all  the  members  live,  v.  8,  &c. 

().  To  be  in  Christ  is  the  source  of  the  Christian's  life;  lo  be 
like  Christ  is  the  sum  of  liis  excellence;  and  to  be  with  Christ 
is  the  fulness  of  his  joy,  vs.  2 — 11. 


CHAP.  6:  12—23. 
Analysis. 
Paul  liaving  sliown,  in  the  preceding  section,  that  union 
with  Christ  secures  not  only  the  pardon,  but  the  destruction  of 
sin,  exhorts  his  brethren  to  live  agreeably  to  the  nature  and  de- 
sign of  the  gospel,  vs.  12,  13.  As  an  encouragement  in  their 
efforts  to  resist  their  corruptions,  he  assures  them  that  sin  shall 
not  have  dominion  over  them,  because  they  are  not  under  the 
law,  but  under  grace,  v.  14.  This  is  another  fundamental  prin- 
ciple in  the  doctrine  of  sanctification.     Holiness  is  not  attained, 


ROMANS  6:  12—23.  253 

and  cannot  be  attained  by  those  who,  being  under  the  law,  arc 
still  unreconciled  to  God.  It  is  necessary  that  we  should  enjoy 
his  favour  in  order  to  exercise  towards  him  right  afiections. 
This  doctrine  is  not  justly  liable  to  the  objection,  that  we  may 
sin  with  impunity  if  not  under  the  law,  v.  15.  The  true  situa- 
tion of  the  Christian  is  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the  relation 
between  a  servant  and  his  master.  Believers,  before  conversion, 
were  the  servants  of  sin;  after  it,  they  are  the  servants  of  right- 
eousness. Formerly,  they  were  under  an  influence  which  se- 
cured their  obedience  to  evil;  now  they  are  under  an  influence 
which  secures  their  obedience  to  good.  The  consequence  of 
the  former  service  was  death;  of  the  present,  life.  The  know- 
ledge of  these  consequences  tends  to  secure  the  continued 
fidelity  of  the  Christian  to  his  nevv -master,  vs.  16 — 23. 

Cofiimentary. 
(12)  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  &c. 
'  Seeing  that  the  design  and  nature  of  the  gospel  are  such  as 
stated  in  the  preceding  section,  those  who  profess  to  have  em- 
braced that  system,  or  to  be  united  to  Christ,  should  show  the 
evidence  of  their  union  by  holiness  of  life.'  To  reign,  of 
course,  signifies  to  exercise  uncontrolled  authority.  The  ex- 
hortation is,  that  Christians  should  not  recognise  or  yield  to 
this  authority  of  sin.  The  words  mortal  body  admit  of  vari- 
ous interpretations.  They  may  be  a  mere  paraphrase  {or  you, 
'  Let  not  sin  reign  in  you.'  So,  in  the  next  verse,  your  inem- 
bers  may  stand  for  yourselves.  2.  Others  take  the  w^ord  7no)'- 
tal  in  the  same  figurative  sense  in  which  the  word  dead  is 
used,  i.  e.  (or  corrupt.  But,  in  this  sense,  mortal  no  where 
else  occurs.  3.  Others  again  take  body,  in  the  sense  o{  flesh,  for 
corrupt  nature.  But  this  also  is  contrary  to  usage.  It  is  most 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  words  are  to  be  retained  in  their 
literal  and  proper  meaning.  "  Let  not  sin  reign  in,  or  over 
your  body."  This  includes  the  idea  that  the  body  is  the  in- 
strument of  sin;  or  that  it  is  by  the  actions  of  the  body  that 
the  existence  and  dominion  of  indwelling  sin  is,  in  a  great 
measure,  manifested;*  and  especially  that  a  great  part  of  sin 

*  -Cupiditates  corporis  sunt  fomcs,  peccatum  ignis. — Benrel. 
Calvin  says,  Nuper  admonui  vocem  Corporis  non  pro  carne  ct  cute  et  ossibus 
accipi,  sed  pro  tota  hominis  massa,  ut  ita  loquar.     Id  certius  coUigere  licet  ex  prae- 


354  ROMANS  6:  12—23. 

consists  in  yielding  to  the  appetites  or  desires  of  the  body.  This 
latter  idea  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  following  clause,  that  ye. 
should  obey  it  (sin)  iti  the  lusts  thereof  (the  body).  We 
should  not  allow  sin  to  reign;  that  is,  we  should  not  obey  it,  by 
yielding  to  the  desires  of  the  body.* 

(13)  Neither  yield  ye  your  tnemhers  as  instruments  of 
unrighteousness  unto  sin,  &c.  The  word  rendered  to  yield 
unto,  means,  to  give  up  to  the  use  and  control  of;  see  Matt. 
26:  53.  Your  Tnemhers  includes  the  faculties  of  the  mind  as 
well  as  the  members  of  the  body;  compare  Col.  3:  5,  "  Mortify 
your  members  which  are  upon  the  earth,  &.c."  The  expression 
is  a  paraphrase  for  yourselves;  which  word  is  substituted  for  it 
in  the  next  clause.  There  is,  however,  an  obvious  reference  to 
the  preceding  verse  and  the  expression  your  body.  The  ex- 
hortation, therefore,  is  not  to  yield  ourselves  up  to  sin  as  instru- 
ments for  doing  evil.  The  word  rendered  instruments, 
though  it  most  frequently  means  ar7ns,  is  used  for  implements 
of  any  kind  and  for  any  purpose. 

But  yield  yourselves  unto  God,  give  yourselves  up  to  the 
use  and  control  of  God.  Jls  those  that  are  alive  from  the 
dead.  This  clause,  which  is  descriptive  both  of  the  state  and 
character  of  believers,  is  evidently  derived  from  the  preceding 
representation  of  Christians  as  being  dead  with  Chi'ist  unto  sin, 
and  living  with  him  unto  God.  They  are  required  to  act  as 
those  who  are  partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ;  as  those  wdiom 
God  has  quickened  and  made  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places 
Avith  Christ  Jesus,  Eph.  2:  5,6.  Snd  your  members,  your 
fiiculties  of  mind  and  body,  as  instruments  of  righteous- 
ness unto  God.  This  clause  is  sim])ly  exj)lanatoiyof  the  for- 
mer. The  construction  is  a  little  doubtful.  This  member  of 
the  sentence  may  be  intimately  connected  witli  the  preceding, 
and  the  word  ©sw  u7ito  God,  be  taken  as  tlic  dative  of  advan- 
tage, 'Yield  yourselves  unto  God  and  your  members,  as  instru- 

scnti  loco :  ([uia  iiltcniiii  mcmhrum  quod  mox  subjiciot  ilo  corporis  partibus,  ail  ani- 
muin  quo(juc  cxlcnditur. 

*  There  is  groat  diversity  of  readings  in  tlie  MS8.  in  tlie  latter  part  of  this  verse. 
The  common  text  which  is  expressed  in  our  version  is,  sis  to  v-rraxoustv  avrrj  tv 
<raTs  iffiSufiiais  avTov.  Griesbach  omits  all  after  tiraxoosiv,  which  leaves  the 
sense  incomplete.  Others  retain  auT*j,  but  reject  what  follows.  And  others  dis- 
card only  auT*)  £v.  'i'hc  meaning  then  is  *  to  obey  the  lusts  thereof.'  This  read- 
ing is  given  by  Kaapp  and  Lachaiaiin. 


ROMANS  G:  12—23.  255 

ments  of  righteousness,  for  his  service.'  Or  tlie  verl)  of  the 
foregoing  clause  may  be  repeated,  '  Yield  yourselves  unto  God, 
and  yield  your  members,  &c.,  to  him.'  The  sense  is  the  same. 
(14)  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,  &c.  This 
clause  is  variously  explained.  Some  make  the  future  here  to 
express  obligation,  '  Sin  ought  not  to  have  dominion  over  you.' 
But  this  is  not  the  natural  force  of  the  words;  and,  in  this  case, 
it  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  inconsistent  with  the  context, 
inasmuch  as  the  following  clause  "  ye  are  not  under  law,  &c." 
would,  in  a  great  measure,  lose  its  force.  The  common  in- 
terpretation gives  a  much  better  sense,  '  Live  devoted  to  God, 
be  faithful  in  your  efforts  to  live  to  his  glory,  for  you  shall  be 
successful;  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you.'  Then  fol- 
lows the  ground  of  this  assurance. 

For  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.     To  be 
under  the  law  means  to  be  under  its  authority,  see  Gal.  4:  2,  4; 
and  to  be  under  its  constraining  influence,  see  Rom.  2:  9.    Both 
ideas  are  here  included.     We  are  not  under  the  authority  of 
the  law,  nor  have  we  a  legal  spirit.     We  are  not  only  free  from 
its  objective  authority,  but  from  its  subjective  influence.     That 
the  law  here  does  not  mean  the  Mosaic  law  or  dispensation 
merely,  is  evident,  1.  From  the  absence  of  the  article  in  the 
Greek.     Paul  would  have  said,  '  ye  are  not  under  the  law,'  and 
not  so  generally, '  ye  are  not  under  law,'  had  he  referred  espe- 
cially to  the  law  of  Moses.     2.  The  sense  afforded  does  not 
suit  the  context.     Freedom  from  the  Mosaic  institutions  is  no 
security  that  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  us.     3.  The  op- 
position to  the  word  grace  shows  that  this  cannot  be  the  apos- 
tle's meaning.    Grace,  here,  as  in  ch.  5 :  2,  means  state  of  favour. 
To  be  under  grace,  therefore,  is  to  be  under  a  gracious  dispen- 
sation, or  in  a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God.      To  be  under 
law,  on  the  other  hand,  means  to  be  in  a  legal  state,  or  under  a 
legal  dispensation.     4.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with 
the  apostle's  doctrines  and  reasoning  throughout  the  epistle.    V6\ 
is  not  the  Mosaic  law  and  ceremonial  works  which  he  declares  |i 
to  be  insufficient,  but  any  law  and  any  works.     As  the  form, 
however,  in  which  a  legal  spirit  manifested  itself  in  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  was  by  a  desire  to  enforce  the  law  of  Moses, 
the  expression  has  often  a  special  reference  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy;  see  Gal.  4:11.     The  law  means  the  whole  rule 


256  ROMANS  6:  12—23. 

of  duty  of  which  the  Mosaic  institutions  were  for  a  long  time 
a  prominent  part;  hut  to  restrict  the  term  in  this  connexion  to 
that  part,  is  inconsistent  with  the  scope  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment, .and  with  the  nature  of  the  gospel  as  the  means  of  de- 
liverance, not  from  ceremonial  observances  only,  but  from  the 
obligation  of  the  law  as  a  rule  of  justification. 

Believers,  therefore,  are  not  under  the  law  as  the  rule  which 
prescribes  the  condition  of  their  acceptance  with  God;  nor  are 
they  under  the  influence  of  a  legal  spirit.  They  are  under 
grace,  inasmuch  as  they  are  under  a  dispensation  which  proffers 
to  them  gratuitous  acceptance,  and,  being  reconciled  to  God, 
they  are  under  the  constraining  influence  of  his  love.  The 
great  principle  of  evangelical  obedience  is  therefore  taught  in 
this  passage.  Holiness  is  not  the  result  of  the  law,  but  of  the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  *  While  under  the 
law,  our  spirit  is  legal  and  slavish;  and  our  works  are  works 

I    of  constraint  and  fear.     When  under  grace,  our  spirit  is  filial 
and  free  (ch.  S:  15);  and  our  works  spontaneous  and  cordial. 
I    Paul  teaches  this  doctrine  at  length  in  the  next  chapter,  and 
I    shows  that  the  freedom  from  the  law,  whicli  the  legal  moralist 
says  must  lead  to  licentiousness,  is  essential  to  holiness. 

(15)  What  then  ?  Shall  ive  sin,  because  we  are  not  under 
the  law,  hut  under  grace?  God  forbid.  Paul  evinces  con- 
stantly his  anxiety  to  avoid  misapprehension,  and  to  show  that 
freedom  from  the  law  is  very  different  from  being  free  from 
moral  obligation.  He,  therefore,  for  the  second  time,  denies  that 
the  liberty  of  tlie  gospel  is  a  liberty  to  sin.  As  the  illustration 
and  confirmation  of  tlie  principle  of  v.  14,  are  formally  resumed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter,  the  apostle  contents  himself 
here  with  proving  the  unsoundness  of  the  objection  presented 
in  this  verse,  l)y  showing  that  it  is  as  impossible  for  the  Christian 
to  live  in  sin,  as  for  the  slave  of  one  man  to  be  obedient  to 
another;  or  for  a  man  to  serve  two  masters  at  the  same  time. 

(16)  Knoio  ye  not,  that  to  ivhoni  ye  yield  yourselves  ser- 
vants to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  luhoni  ye  obey,  &c. 
'  Know  ye  not  that  those  who  obey  sin  are  its  slaves;  hurried 
on  from  one  degrading  service  to  another,  until  it  works  their 
ruin;  but  tliat  those  who  serve  holiness  are  constrained,  though 
sweetly,  to  constancy  and  fidelity,  until  the  glorious  consum- 
mation of  their  course  ?'     As  a  servant  or  slave  is  under  an 


ROMANS  H:  12— f>5t  257 

influence  which  secures  obedience  to  his  \iiaster,  so  also,  in 
spiritual  or  moral  relations,  a  man  who  serves  sin  is  under  an 
influence  which  secures  the  continuance  of  his  cnjjedience,  and 
he  who  serves  holiness  is  under  an  influence  which  effectually 
secures  the  constancy  of  his  service.  This  being  the,->case5'' 
it  is  not  possible  for  the  Christian  or  servant  of  ho'%iess  to 
be  found  engaged  in  the  service  of  sin.  The  language  and  the 
construction  are  here  nearly  the  same  as  in  v.  13,  To  yield 
ourselves  as  servants  unto  any  one,  is  to  give  ourselves  up  to 
his  authority  and  control.  All  unrenewed  men  give  themselves 
up  to  sin  under  one  form  or  another.  They  are,  therefore,  its 
slaves,  kept  faithful  to  this  service,  and  reap  its  final  reward. 
Christians,  on  the  other  hand,  give  themselves  up  to  holiness, 
and  are  kept  faithful  and  receive  their  reward.  This  is  more 
fully  expressed  in  the  next  clause. 

Whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  unto  right- 
eousness. The  expression  servants  of  obedience  is  very 
unusual.  From  the  opposition,  however,  between  sin  and 
obedience,  the  latter  must  mean  holiness  or  goodness  in  general, 
although  no  precisely  similar  use  of  the  word  occurs;  see  ch.  5: 
19.  In  like  manner,  from  the  antithesis  between  death  and 
righteousness;  the  one  being  the  result  of  sin,  and  the  other  of 
obedience,  it  is  evident  that  the  latter  must  be  taken  metony- 
mically  for  the  effects  of  righteousness,  i.  e.  the  favour  of  God, 
happiness,  the  opposite  of  death.  If  the  words  unto  death  be 
left  out  of  the  former  of  these  clauses,  as  the  corresponding 
words  in  the  original  are  wanting  in  several  MSS.,  the  whole 
sense  is  different.  Obedience  unto  righteousness  would  then 
most  naturally  mean  righteous  obedience,  or  obedience  which 
tended  to  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  law;  see  ch.  1:  24, 
"  Lusts  unto  uncleanness,"  i.  e.  unclean  lusts.  The  two  words 
in  the  second  clause  would  then  answer  to  the  word  sin  in  the 
first.  'Whether  the  servants  of  sin  or  of  righteous  obedience.' 
Both  external  and  internal  authority,  however,  are  in  favour  of 
the  common  reading.* 

(17)   But  God  be  thanked  that  ye  were  the  servants  of 


*  The  words  sig  Savarov  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  D.  and  E.,  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
sions, and  in  some  of  the  Latin  fathers.  Mill  and  Griesbach  approve  of  the  omis- 
sion ;  but  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  most  other  editors  retain  them. 

33 


258  ROMANS  6:  12—23. 

sin;  hut  ye.  have  obeyed  from  the  heart,  &c.  As  it  is  the 
apostle's  object  to  show  that  believers  cannot  live  in  sin,  inas- 
much as  they  have  become  the  servants  of  another  master,  he 
applies  the  general  truth  stated  in  the  preceding  verses  more 
directly  to  his  immediate  readers,  and  gives  thanks  that  they, 
being  emancipated  from  their  former  bondage,  are  now  bound 
to  a  master  whose  service  is  perfect  liberty.  The  expression 
in  the  first  member  of  this  verse  is  somewhat  unusual,  although 
the  sense  is  plain.  '  God  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants 
of  sin,  but,  &c.'  for  '  God  be  thanked,  that  ye,  being  the  servants 
of  sin,  have  obeyed,  &c.' 

But  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine 
ivhich  was  delivered  unto  you.  The  construction  of  the 
original  is  here  doubtful  and  difficult.  It  may  be  resolved  thus, 
*  Ye  have  obeyed  that  form  of  doctrine  (twoj)  into  which  ye 
have  been  delivered,  i.  e.  to  which  ye  have  become  subjected.'* 
The  word  (-Tra^afJitSw/j-i)  rendered  to  deliver,  being  often  used  in 
a  similar  construction  (nva  s'/g  ti)  in  the  sense  of  subjecting  one 
to  the  power  of  some  person  or  thing.  That  the  word  {ov  form 
is  in  the  accusative  (tu^ov)  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  its  being 
attracted  to  the  case  of  its  relative.  Or  the  sentence  may  be 
thus  explained, '  Ye  have  obeyed  that  form  of  doctrine  which 
was  delivered  unto  you.'  Compare  Rom.  3:  2.  Gal.  2:  7.  Heb. 
11:2.  '  Which  was  delivered  unto  you,''  for  '  which  ye  had 
(or  possessed)  delivered.'  The  grammatical  structure  of  the 
sentence  is  in  this  case  entirely  different  from  that  assumed  in 
the  former  explanation,  but  the  sense  is  much  the  same.  The 
general  idea  is,  yc  have  obeyed  the  doctrines  which  ye  have 
received. 

Form  of  doctrine.  Form,  i.  e.  type,  image,  model,  rule. 
The  word   has  all  these  meanings.     The  last  seems  the  best 

*  The  original  is  b'TrrjxoijffocTS  (5s  ix  xa^6lag  £ig  ov  'ra^j(56Sr)TS  tuVov  (5iJa^^g. 
This  may  be  resolved  thus  •j'7rr)XoutfaT£  Tw  tjtcj  ^i(5ap(>;s,  Sig  ov  cra^EOo'SriTe, 
obedivinti.i  ilU  doctviiiae  vatUmi,  cut  .ttibdiii  estis.  So  Fritzsche  anil  Wahl.  But 
as  oiraxojw  is  often  followed  by  an  accusative  with  sig,  the  passage  may  be  resolved 
thus,  LcTryixoutfaTS  sig  <rov  tuttov  (Si^a^^vjg,  ov  'Ka^t^f^^ri^s,  i.  e.  ffa^a^o&f'vTa  t^X^^s, 
see  Winer's  Grammatik,  p.  213.  The  construction  is  then  the  common  one,  in 
which  a  verb,  which,  in  the  active  form,  governs  the  dative  of  the  person,  Inis,  in 
the  passive,  that  person  as  the  subject.  Sec  Rom.  3 :  2.  Gal.  2 :  7.  There  is  still, 
however,  in  this  case,  an  attraction  to  be  assumed,  as  well  as  in  the  other  explana- 
tion. 


ROMANS  6:  12—23.  259 

suited  to  this  passage.  They  were  obedient  to  the  gospel  as  a 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  If  even  in  ordinary  cases  a  servant 
is  obedient  to  his  master,  there  is  little  reason  to  apprehend  that 
Christians,  who,  from  the  heart  have  become  obedient  to  the 
gospel,  will  relapse  into  the  service  of  sin. 

(18)  Being  then  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became  the  ser- 
vants of  righteousness.  Having  been  emancipated  from  one 
master,  they  became  subject  to  another.  The  illustration  is  the 
same  as  in  the  preceding  verses.  It  is  absurd  that  a  slave  just 
emancipated  should  voluntarily  return  to  his  former  bondage; 
so  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Christian,  delivered  from  the 
bondage  of  sin,  should  return  to  it*  For  the  service  to  which 
he  is  introduced,  is,  in  fact,  liberty  in  its  highest  and  truest 
sense.  "If  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free 
indeed,"  John  8:  36. 

(19)  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  vien  on  account  of  the 
infirmity  of  your  flesh,  &c.  As  the  original  word  here  used 
in  the  phrase  I  speak  after  t he  manner  of  men  (avS^^'rivovXgyw) 
may  signify  accommodated  to  human  strength,  easily  home, 
see  1  Cor.  10:  13,  many  understand  the  apostle  as  meaning, 
'  I  require  nothing  unusual  or  difficult  to  be  performed.'  But 
this  interpretation  is  neither  so  well  suited  to  the  context,  nor 
so  agreeable  to  the  usual  force  of  the  similar  expressions  so  often 
used  by  the  apostle.  The  common  interpretation  is  therefore 
to  be  preferred.  '  I  say  what  is  common  among  men,'  i.  e.  I 
use  an  illustration  borrowed  from  the  common  affairs  of  life. 
The  apostle  appears  to  have  felt  that  the  illustration  was  inade- 
quate and  beneath  the  dignity  of  his  subject.  He,  therefore, 
states  why  he  used  it.  He  was  forced  to  borrow  a  comparison 
from  the  relations  of  men  on  account  of  the  infirmity  of  their 
flesh.  This,  according  to  the  familiar  scriptural  idiom,  means 
carnal  infirmity.  The  two  ideas  of  weakness  and  corruption 
are  commonly  united  in  the  scriptural  use  of  the  word  flesh. 
The  apostle,  therefore,  means  to  intimate  that  it  was  on  account 
of  a  want  of  spiritual  apprehension  on  the  part  of  his  readers,  or 
because  of  a  weakness  arising  from  their  being  corrupt,  that  he 


*  AbsurJum  est,  ut  post  manumissionem  quis  in  servitutis  conditionc  maneat. 
Observandum,  quomodo  nemo  possit  justitiae  servire,  nisi  Dei  potentia  et  beneficio 
prius  a  pcccati  tyrannidc  libcratus. — Calvin, 


260  ROMANS  G:  12—23. 

was  obliged  to  use  such  figures.  Wliat  he  seems  to  have 
regarded  as  incongruous,  is  the  comparison  of  the  believer's 
devotion  to  God  and  holiness,  to  a  slavery,  while  it  is  a  volun- 
tary and  delightful  service.  The  point  of  the  comparison, 
however,  is  merely  the  devotion  and  constancy  of  the  obedience. 

For  as  ye  have  yielded  your  memhers  as  servants  to  un- 
cleanness  and  to  iniquity,  unto  iniquity  ;  even  so  noiv  yield 
your  members  servants  to  righteousness,  unto  holiness.  The 
wordybr,  at  the  beginning  of  this  clause,  connects  it  with  v.  18; 
the  first  part  of  this  verse  being  parenthetical.  '  Being  free 
from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants  of  righteousness,  for  as  ye 
yielded  your  members  to  sin,  so  now  have  ye  yielded  them  to 
righteousness.'  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  Paul  expresses  ex- 
hortatively  instead  of  declaratively,  as  the  regular  structure  of 
the  sentence  would  seem  to  require.  Although  the  general 
sense  of  these  clauses  is  perfectly  obvious,  there  is  some  doubt 
as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  apostle.  The  Avords  unto  ini- 
quity and  unto  holiness,  in  the  two  members  of  the  sentence, 
evidently  correspond  to  each  other.  The  preposition  unto  (ejg) 
probably  points  out  the  result.  '  Ye  served  uncleanness  unto 
iniquity,  i.  e.  so  as  to  become  iniquitous  ;  even  so  ye  serve  right- 
ousness  unto  holiness,  i.  e.  so  as  to  become  holy.'  See  ch.  4:  3. 
10:  1,  10,  &c.  &c.  This  is  the  most  natural  interpretation.  It 
is,  however,  possible  to  understand  the  phrases  "  iniquity  unto 
iniquity"  and  "  righteousness  unto  holiness,"  as  expressing  the 
ideas  of  intensity  and  progress.  Compare  the  expressions 
"death  unto  death,"  i.  e.  very  deadly,  and  "  life  unto  life,"  &c. 

(20)  For  ivhen  ye  ivere  the  servants  of  sin,  ye  were  free 
from  righteousness.  This  verse  may  be  understood  either  as 
a  mere  statement  of  the  fact,  that  when  the  servants  of  the  one 
master  they  were  not  the  servants  of  the  other;  or  as  referring 
to  the  state  of  feeling  of  those  intended.  '  When  the  servants 
of  sin,  ye  felt  indeed  free  from  all  the  restraints  of  righteous- 
ness; ye  enjoyed  a  kind  of  liberty,  but  what  is  the  fruit  of  such 
liberty  ?'  v.  21.  According  to  this  latter  view,  freedom  from 
righteousness  is  regarded  as  a  kind  of  advantage  in  the  sinner's 
estimation,  which  Paul  shows  in  the  next  verse  to  be  of  no 
value.  The  former  view,  however,  seems  the  most  simple  and 
natural,  as  well  as  most  consistent  with  the  context,  and  with 
the  use  oi  for  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.     As  a  motive  for 


ROMANS  G:  12—23.  2G1 

obedience  to  the  exhortation  contahicd  in  v,  19,  Paul  reminds 
them  that  they  were  formerly  the  servants  of  a  far  different 
master,  of  the  nature  and  results  of  whose  service  he  speaks  in 
the  next  verse. 

(21,  22)  In  these  verses  the  apostle  refers  to  the  different 
character  and  results  of  the  service  of  sin  and  holiness,  as  a  rea- 
son for  continued  devotion  to  God.  What  fruit  hadye  then  in 
those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  asha^ned?  &c.  As  thus  trans- 
lated and  pointed,  this  clause  can  hardly  have  any  other  mean- 
ing than,  '  What  was  the  result  of  your  former  service  or  mode 
of  life  ?'  The  answer  to  this  question  is  found  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  verse,  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.  This  supposes 
the  words  for  tliose  things  or  works  to  he  supplied,  as  they 
are  not  expressed  in  the  text.  This  interpretation  gives  a  good 
sense,  and  is  consistent  with  the  use  of  the  j)hrase  to  have  fruit 
of  in  the  sense  of  deriving  benefit  from.  Others,  however,  as 
Luther,  Koppe,  Tholuck,  Lachmann,  make  the  question  end 
with  the  word  then,  and  the  answer  begin  with  whereof 
'  What  fruit  had  ye  then  ?  such  whereof  ye  are  now  ashamed, 
for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.'  This  also  gives  a  good 
sense.  A  third  method  is  to  take  the  phrase  to  have  fruit  as 
synonymous  with  to  bear  fruit.  The  sense  then  is, 'What 
was  the  character  of  your  former  service  ?  What  fruit  did  ye 
bear  ?  or,  what  works  did  ye  perform  ?  Such  whereof  ye  are 
now  ashamed,  &c.'  This  interpretation,  though  suited  to  the 
context,  is  not  so  consistent  with  the  common  and  natural  im- 
port of  the  phrase  '  to  have  fruit.'  The  first  view  of  the  pas- 
sage is  perhaps,  on  the  whole,  to  be  preferred. 

For  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.  The  sense  of  this 
clause  depends  on  the  preceding.  If  the  first  interpretation  of 
the  former  part  of  the  sentence  be  adopted,  those  things  must 
refer  to  the  works  of  which  the  converted  sinner  is  now  ashamed. 
End  means  the  result,  that  to  which  the  things  in  question  lead. 
Death  here,  as  in  v.  23  and  elsewhere,  stands  for  all  the  evils 
consequent  on  sin. 

(22)  But  now  being  7nade  free  from  sin,  and  become  the 
servants  of  God,  &c.  '  When  the  servants  of  sin,  ye  were  em- 
ployed in  a  way  which  ye  now  blush  to  remember,  and  which 
could  end  only  in  hopeless  degradation  and  misery;  but  now 
being  free  from  tliat  bondage,  and  bound  in  sweet  bonds  to  God, 


262  ROMANS  G:  12—23. 

ye  are  enriched  with  holiness  here,  and  liave  the  certain  pros- 
pect of  eternal  life  hereafter.'  Being  free  from  sin,  i.  e. 
emancipated  from  bondage  to  it;  see  the  corresponding  phrase 
free  from  righteousness,  v.  20.  Become  the  servants  of  God, 
i.  6.  having  become  slaves  to  God.  It  is  the  use  of  this  word 
which  led  Paul  to  state  w^iy  he  was  led  to  employ  such  an 
illustration,  in  some  respects  so  little  suited  to  the  relation  of 
the  believer  to  God.  The  service  is  not  slavish  either  in  its 
motive  or  character.  Still,  it  is  faithful  and  well  secured,  and 
these  ideas  are  the  point  of  the  comparison. 

Ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness.  Fruit  iinto  holiness 
may  be  either  fruit  which  is  lioliness,  or  fruit  which  tends 
to  holiness,  i.  e.  produces  it.  This  is  most  natural.*  The 
result  of  the  service  of  God  is  sanctification  here,  and  eternal 
life  hereafter.  Jind  the  end  eternal  life.  Not  only  is  this 
service  the  most  elevated  and  blessed  in  its  own  nature,  but  its 
certain  consummation  is  eternal  life.  Life  in  all  the  senses  in 
which  Christ  causes  his  people  to  live. 

(23)  For  tlie  wages  of  sin  is  death;  but  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  The  reason 
stated  in  this  verse,  for  the  declaration  of  the  preceding,  is,  that 
sin  earns  and  deserves  death.  There  is  as  much  an  obligation 
in  justice,  that  death  should  be  the  consequence  of  sin,  as  that 
the  labourer  should  have  his  hire.  The  result  of  the  other  ser- 
vice is  equally  sure,  although  on  other  grounds;  such  is  the 
purpose  of  God.  Hell  is  always  merited,  heaven  never.  The 
connexion  between  sin  and  misery  is  that  between  labour  and 
its  just  reward;  the  connexion  between  obedience  to  God  and 
eternal  happiness,  is  merely  that  of  grace  and  congruity.  '  Ves- 
sels of  mercy  prepared  unto  glory.'  The  prcj)aration  is  of 
grace  as  well  as  the  reward.  Through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel,  then,  instead  of  being  the  ministers 
of  sin,  as  their  opposers  so  confidently  asserted,  ellectually 
secure  what  the  law  never  could  accomplish,  an  obedience  con- 
sisting; in  holiness  and  resulting  in  eternal  life. 


•  Qucmadmodum  iluplicem  peccati  finom  ante  proposiiit,  ita  nunc  justitiae. 
Prccatum  in  hue  vita  nialao  consriontiao  tornienta  afVcrt,  doinde  aotornam  niortoin. 
Justitiae  pracsoutoin  fructuni  coiligiinu.s,  sauctilicationcin :  iu  fiituruin  sj)oianuis 
vitam  aclcrnaui. — Cai.vin. 


ROMANS  6:  12—23.  263 


Doctrmes. 

1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section,  and  of  the  whole 
gospel,  in  reference  to  sanctification,  is,  that  grace,  instead 
of  leading  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  is  essential  to  the  exer- 
cise of  holiness.  So  long  as  we  are  under  the  influence  of  a 
self-righteous  or  legal  spirit,  the  motive  and  aim  of  all  good 
works  are  wrong  or  defective.  The  motive  is  fear,  or  some 
merely  natural  affection,  and  the  aim,  to  merit  the  bestowment 
of  good.  But  when  we  accept  of  the  gracious  offers  of  the 
gospel,  and  feel  that  our  sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned,  a  sense 
of  the  divine  love  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
awakens  all  holy  allections.  The  motive  to  obedience  is  now 
love,  and  its  aim  the  glory  of  God,  v.  14,  &c. 

2.  Paul  teaches  that  it  is  not  only  obligatory  on  Christians  to 
renounce  the  seiwicc  of  sin,  but  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  au- 
thority and  power  of  their  former  master  are  destroyed,  and 
those  of  their  new  master  experienced,  whenever  they  embrace 
the  gospel.  This  is  the  very  nature  of  the  change.  The 
charge,  therefore,  that  the  gospel  leads  to  the  service  of  sin,  is 
an  absurdity,  vs.  15 — 18. 

3.  Religion  is  essentially  active.  It  is  the  yielding  up  of 
ourselves,  with  all  our  powers,  to  God,  and  the  actual  employ- 
ment of  them  as  instruments  in  doing  good.  Nothing  can  be 
at  a  greater  remove  from  this,  than  making  religion  a  mere 
matter  of  indolent  profession;  a  saying  Lord,  Lord,  v.  12,  &c. 

4.  Both  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  appointment  of 
God,  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  It  renders  intercourse  with 
God,  who  is  the  fountain  of  life,  impossible.  It  consists  in  the 
exercise  of  feelings,  in  their  own  nature,  inconsistent  with  hap- 
piness; it  constantly  increases  in  malignity  and  in  power  to 
destroy  the  peace  of  the  soul.  Apart  from  these  essential 
tendencies,  its  relation  to  conscience  and  the  justice  of  God, 
renders  the  connexion  between  sin  and  miseiy  indissoluble. 
Salvation  in  sin  is  as  much  a  contradiction,  as  happiness  in 
misery,  vs.  21,  23. 

5.  Eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God.  It  does  not,  like  eternal 
death,  flow^,  as  a  natural  consequence,  from  any  tiling  in  us. 
With  the  holy  angels,  who  have  never  lost  the  favour  of  God, 
this  may  be  the  case.     But  the  tendency  of  all  that  belongs  to 


264  ROMANS  G:  12—23. 

us,  is  to  death;  this  must  be  counteracted;  those  excellences,  in 
which  life  consists  and  from  which  it  flows,  must  be  produced, 
sustained  and  strengthened  by  the  constant,  condescending  and 
long-suffering  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  life  thus  gra- 
ciously produced  and  graciously  sustained,  is  at  last  graciously 
crowned  with  eternal  glory,  vs.  22,  23. 

Remarks. 
1.  We  should  cultivate  a  sense  of  the  divine  favour  as  a  means 
to  holiness.  We  must  cease  to  be  slaves  before  we  can  be 
children.  We  must  be  free  from  the  dominion  of  fear  before 
we  can  be  under  the  government  of  love.  A  self-righteous 
spirit,  therefore,  is  not  more  inconsistent  with  reliance  on 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  order  to  justification,  than  it  is 
with  the  existence  and  progress  of  sanctification.  Whatever 
tends  to  destroy  a  sense  of  the  divine  favour,  must  be  inimical 
to  holiness.  Hence  the  necessity  of  keeping  a  conscience  void 
of  offence;  and  of  maintaining  uninterrupted  our  union  with 
Christ,  as  our  sacrifice  and  advocate,  v.  14,  (S:c. 

2.  Those  Christians  are  under  a  great  mistake,  who  suppose 
that  despondency  is  favourable  to  piety.  Happiness  is  one  of 
the  elements  of  life.  Hope  and  joy  are  twin  daughters  of  piety, 
and  cannot,  without  violence  and  injury,  be  separated  from 
their  parent.     To  rejoice  is  as  much  a  duty  as  it  is  a  privilege, 

v.  14,  &LC. 

3.  Sinners  arc  slaves.  Sin  reigns  over  them;  and  all  their 
powers  are  delivered  to  this  master  as  instruments  of  unright- 
eousness. He  secures  obedience  witli  infallible  certainty;  his 
bonds  become  stronger  every  day,  and  iiis  wages  are  death. 
From  his  tyranny  and  recompense  there  is  no  deliverance  by 
the  law;  our  only  hope  is  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  vs.  12, 
13,  16,  &c. 

4.  Christians  are  the  servants  of  God.  He  reigns  over  them, 
and  all  their  powers  are  consecrated  to  him.  He,  too,  secures 
fidelity,  and  his  bonds  of  love  and  duty  become  stronger  every 
day.     His  reward  is  eternal  life,  vs.  12,  13,  16,  &c. 

5.  It  is  of  God,  that  those  who  were  once  the  servants  of  sin, 
become  the  servants  of  righteousness.  To  him,  therefore,  all 
the  praise  and  gratitude  belong,  v.  17. 

6.  When  a  man  is  the  slave  of  sin,  he  commonly  thinks  him- 


ROMANS  7:  1—6.  265 

self  free;  and  when  most  degraded,  is  often  the  most  proud. 
When  truly  free,  he  feels  himself  most  strongly  bound  to  God; 
and  when  most  elevated,  is  most  humble,  vs.  20 — 22. 

7.  Self-abasement,  or  shame  in  view  of  his  past  life,  is  the 
necessary  result  of  those  views  of  his  duty  and  destiny  which 
every  Christian  obtains,  when  he  becomes  the  servant  of  God, 
v.  21. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Contents. 
The  apostle,  having  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the 
doctrines  of  grace  do  not  give  liberty  to  sin,  but  on  the  con- 
trary are  productive  of  holiness,  in  this  chapter  first  illustrates 
and  confirms  his  position  that  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace,  and  shows  the  consequences  of  this  change  in  our 
relation  to  God.  While  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth  fruit 
unto  sin;  when  under  grace,  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  righteous- 
ness. This  occupies  the  first  section,  vs.  1 — 6.  The  second, 
vs.  7 — 25,  contains  an  exhibition  of  the  operation  of  the  law, 
derived  from  the  apostle's  own  experience,  and  designed  to 
show  its  insufficiency  to  produce  sanctification,  as  he  had 
before  proved  it  to  be  insufficient  for  justification.  This  section 
consists  of  two  parts,  vs.  7 — 13,  which  exhibit  the  operation 
of  the  law  in  producing  conviction  of  sin;  and  vs.  14 — 25, 
which  show  that  in  the  inward  conflict  between  sin  and  holi- 
ness, the  law  cannot  afford  the  believer  any  relief.  His  only 
hope  of  victory  is  in  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

CHAP.  7:  1—6. 
t^nalysis. 
This  section  is  an  illustration  of  the  position  assumed  in  v. 
14  of  the  preceding  chapter;  we  are  not  under  law,  but  under 
grace.  Paul  remarks,  as  a  general  fact,  that  the  authority  of 
laws  is  not  perpetual,  v.  1.  For  example,  the  law  of  marriage 
binds  a  woman  to  her  husband  only  so  long  as  he  lives.  When 
he  is  dead,  she  is  free  from  the  obligation  which  that  law  im- 

34 


266  ROMANS  7:  1—6. 

posed,  and  is  at  liberty  to  marry  another  man,  vs.  2,  3.  So  we, 
being  free  from  the  law,  which  was  our  first  husband,  are  at 
liberty  to  marry  another,  even  Christ.  We  are  freed  from  the 
law  by  the  death  of  Christ,  v.  4.  The  fruit  of  our  first  mar- 
riage was  sin,  v.  5.     The  fruit  of  the  second  is  holiness,  v.  6. 

The  apparent  confusion  in  this  passage  arises  from  the  apos- 
tle's not  carrying  the  figure  regularly  through.  Asa  woman  is 
free  from  obligation  to  her  husband  by  his  death,  so  we  are 
free  from  the  law  by  its  death,  is  obviously  the  illustration 
intended.  But  the  apostle,  out  of  respect  probably  to  the  feel- 
ings of  his  readers,  avoids  saying  the  law  is  dead,  but  expresses 
the  idea  that  we  are  free  from  it,  by  saying  we  are  dead  to  the 
law  by  the  body  of  Christ.'* 

Commentary. 
(I)  Know  ye  not  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  them  that  know 
the  law),  how  that  the  law  hath  dominion  over  a  7)ian  as 
long  as  he  liveth  ?  The  sentiment  of  this  verse,  viz.  the 
obligation  of  the  law  is  not  perpetual,  is  expressed  very  gene- 
rally, and  not  precisely  in  the  form  suited  to  the  illustration 
which  follows.!  The  illustration  is,  that  the  law  of  marriage 
ceases  to  bind  a  woman  when  her  husband  is  dead;  but  Paul 
here  says,  the  law  has  dominion  over  a  man  so  long  as  he  lives. 
The  general  thought  is  all  that  is  intended  to  be  here  expressed; 
and  this  received  its  form  probably  before  the  precise  illustra- 
tion was  determined  in  the  apostle's  own  mind.  It  is  not 
necessarily  to  be  inferred  from  the  expression, /.9/?e«A"  to  them 
that  know  the  law,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  are  specially 
referred  to.  The  principle  stated  being  so  familiar,  the  apostle 
might  assume  that  any  class  of  his  readers  knew  enough  of 
law  to  be  aware  of  its  truth. 

*  Cactcrum  ncquis  conturbctur,  quod  inter  sc  comparata  membra  non  omnino 
respondent :  praemoncndi  sumus,  apostohim  data  opera  voluisse  oxigua  invcrsione 
deflectere  asperioris  verbi  invidiam.  Debuerat  dicere,  ut  ordinc  similitudinem 
contexerct :  Mulicr  post  mortem  viri  soluta  est  a  conjugii  vinculo,  Lex,  quae  locum 
habet  mariti  erga  nos,  mortua  est  nobis :  ergo  sumus  ab  ejus  postestate  liberi.  Sed 
ne  offcnderct  Judaeos  verbi  aspcritate,  si  dixisset  legem  esse  mortuam,  deflectione 
est  usus,  dicens  nos  legi  esse  mortuos. — Calvin. 

I  J\tum  ignoratis.  Sit  generalis  propositio.  Legem  non  in  aliuni  fineni  latam 
esse  hominibus,  quam  ut  praesentem  vitam  nioderetur:  apud  mortuos  nullum  ci 
superesse  locum.  Cui  postea  hypothcsin  subjiciel,  nos  illi  esse  mortuos  in  Christi 
corj)orc. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  7:  1—6.  267 

The  original  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  is  to  be  rendered  "  as  long  as  he  lives,"  or  "  as  long  as  it 
lives."  The  decision  of  this  point  depends  on  the  context.  In 
favour  of  the  latter,  it  may  be  said,  1.  That  it  is  better  suited 
to  the  apostle's  design,  which  is  to  show  that  the  law  is  dead 
or  abrogated.  2.  Tliat  in  v.  6  (according  to  the  common  read- 
ing) the  law  is  spoken  of  as  being  dead.  3.  And,  especially, 
that  in  vs.  2,  3,  the  woman  is  said  to  be  free  from  the  law,  not 
by  her  own,  but  by  her  husband's  death;  which  would  seem  to 
require  that,  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison,  the  husband, 
i.  e.  the  law,  should  be  represented  as  dying,  and  not  the  wife, 
i.  e.  those  bound  by  the  law.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  to  say  the  law  lives,  and  the  law  dies,  are  very 
unusual  modes  of  expression,  and  perfectly  unexampled  in 
Paul's  writings,  if  the  doubtful  case  in  v.  6  be  excepted. 
2.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  verse  2.  It  is  not 
the  law  that  dies;  "  The  woman  is  bound  to  her  husband  as  long 
as  he  liveth,  but  if  the  husband  be  dead,  &c."  3.  Throughout 
the  passage  it  is  said  that  we  are  dead  to  the  law  (v.  4),  delivered 
from  the  law  (v.  6),  and  not  that  the  law  is  dead.  The  common 
interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred.  '  The  law  has 
dominion  as  long  and  no  longer  than  the  person  lives  to  whom 
it  has  respect.  For  example,  the  law  of  marriage  ceases  to  be 
binding  when  one  of  the  parties  is  dead.' 

The  word  law,  in  this  verse,  seems  to  be  used  generally.  It  is 
not  the  law  of  Moses,  nor  the  moral  law,  nor  the  law  of  mar- 
riage particularly;  but  the  apostle's  remark  has  reference  to 
laws  in  general.  The  particular  example  is  given  in  vs.  2,  3, 
and  the  application  of  the  remark  to  Christians  is  made  in  v.  4. 

(2)  For  the  ivoman  which  hath  an  husband  is  bound  by 
the  law  to  her  husband  as  long  as  he  liveth,  &c.  This  and 
the  following  verse  are  a  simple  illustration  of  the  principle 
stated  in  v.  1.  The  word  for,  therefore,  has  the  force  which 
it  so  often  has  in  such  connexions,  being  equivalent  to  for 
example.  'Death  puts  an  end  to  the  authority  of  laws;  for 
example,  the  woman,  &c.'  Is  bound  by  the  law.  The  law 
here  is  the  law  of  marriage,  and  not  specially  or  exclusively 
the  Mosaic  law  on  that  subject.  But  if  her  husband  be  dead, 
she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  husband.  "  Law  of  her 
husband;"  i.  e.  the  law  which   bound  her  to  her  husband;  or 


268  ROMANS  7:  1— G. 

which  respects  her  liusband.     The  words  rendered  loosed  from 
are  so  used  in  v.  6.  Gal.  5:  4. 

(3)  So  then  if,  lohile  her  husband  livet.h,  she  be  married 
to  another  man,  she  shall  be  called  an  adulteress,  &c.  This 
verse  is  but  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  one.  '  While  her 
husband  lives,  the  woman  is  bound  by  the  law  of  marriage,  for 
she  is  an  adulteress,  if,  while  he  is  living,  she  be  married  to 
another  man;  but  that  his  death  frees  her  from  this  law  is  plain, 
for  she  is  not  regarded  as  an  adulteress,  if  her  husband  being 
dead,  she  be  married  to  another.'  Laws,  therefore,  are  not 
necessarily  of  perpetual  obligation. 

(4)  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead  to  the 
law  by  the  body  of  Christ,  that  ye  should  be  married  to 
another,  &c.  Wherefore  this  being  the  case,  i.  e.  as  the  woman 
is  freed  from  the  marriage  contract  by  the  death  of  her  husband, 
in  like  manner  ye  are  free  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ.* 
And,  moreover,  as  the  woman  is  at  liberty  to  marry  the  second 
time,  so  are  we.  Freed  from  the  demands  of  our  first  husband 
(the  law),  we  may  be  married  to  him  who  has  risen  from  the 
dead.  That  is,  freed  from  the  law,  as  a  rule  of  justification,  we 
are  at  liberty  to  accept  of  the  offers  of  gratuitous  acceptance 
made  to  us  in  the  gospel.  As  before  remarked,  the  meaning  of 
the  apostle  would  be  rather  plainer,  if,  at  the  beginning  of  this 
verse  instead  of  saying  ye  are  dead  to  the  law,  he  had  said 
the  law  is  dead  to  you.  As  the  woman  is  freed  from  her  hus- 
band when  he  dies,  so  are  we  freed  from  the  law  when  it  is 

*  There  is  a  mixture  of  metaphors  here.  The  law  is  compared  at  once  to  the 
marriage  contract,  and  to  the  first  husband.  But  as  freedom  from  the  marriage 
contract  is  tantamount  to  freedom  from  the  first  husband,  the  meaning  of  the  apos- 
tle is  sufficiently  obvious. 

Lex  velut  maritus  noster  fuit,  sub  cujus  jugo  detinebamur,  donee  mortua  est. 

Post  legis  mortem  Christus  nos  assum])sit,  id  est,  a  lege  solutos  adjunxit  sibi. 

Ergo  Christo  c  mortuis  suscitato  copulati  adhaerere  ei  soli  debenius:  atcjue  ut 
aetcrna  est  Christi  vita  post  resurrectionem,  ita  posthac  nullum  futurum  est  divor- 
tium. — Calvin. 

TiroLucK  gives  a  different  view  of  this  passage.  He  considers  the  apostle  as 
having  virtually  stated  in  the  previous  verses,  that  "  the  law  is  dead  to  us,"  i.  e. 
that  "its  demands  are  satisfied;"  he,  therefore,  regards  him  in  this  to  state,  as  the 
natural  consecjuence  of  this  fact,  that  "  we  are  dead  to  the  law,"  i.  e.  that  we  are 
free  from  a  legal  spirit.  This,  however,  though  perfectly  true,  is  not  in  keeping 
with  the  context.  'J'he  main  idea  of  the  passage  is,  that  we  are  freed  from  the 
law,  and  are  in  a  state  of  grace;  sec  v.  6. 


ROMANS  7:  1— G.  2G9 

dead,  i.  e.  satisfied.  But  this  is  a  mode  of  expression  which  he 
seems  studiously  to  avoid.  And  the  idea  of  our  freedom  from 
the  law  is  as  well  expressed  by  saying  we  are  dead  to  the  law, 
as  by  saying  the  laio  is  dead  to  us.  In  illustration  of  the 
phrase  dead  to  the  law,  see  v.  6.  ch.  6:  2,  Gal.  2:19.  1  Peter 
2:  24. 

We  are  said  to  be  freed  from  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ, 
i.  e.  by  the  sacrifice  of  that  body,  or  by  his  death.  Paul  uses 
the  expressions  "  the  blood  of  Christ,"  Eph.  2:  13;  "  his  flesh," 
Eph.  2:  15;  "  his  cross,"  v.  16;  "  his  body,"  Col.  1:  22,  as  all 
equivalent  to  "  his  death."  The  demands  of  the  law  are  satis- 
fied by  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  He  has  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  by  bearing  its  penalty  or  curse  in  our  place, 
Gal.  3:13.  To  those,  therefore,  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  the 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  or  rule  of  justification,  is  no  longer 
in  force,  Rom.  8:  2. 

That  ye  should  be  married  to  another,  to  him  ivho  is 
raised  from  the  dead.  This  clause  expresses  the  design  of  the 
redemption  just  spoken  of.  We  are  not  delivered  from  the 
law,  that  we  should  be  free  from  all  restraint,  or  be  our  own 
masters,  but  that  we  should  be  united  to  him  through  whom 
alone  the  original  design  of  the  law,  the  sanctification  of  men, 
can  be  effected.  As  the  apostle  had  spoken  of  Christ,  by  im- 
plication at  least,  as  being  dead,  when  he  spoke  of  his  body, 
there  was  a  propriety  in  his  saying  luho  is  raised  from  the  dead. 
It  is  a  living  husband,  to  use  the  apostle's  figure,  which  every 
believer  has  in  Christ.  And  as  he  ever  lives,  the  union  is  per- 
petual; there  is  to  be  no  more  either  divorce  or  death.* 

That  we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.  This  is  the 
design  of  our  union  with  Christ.  The  object,  here  expressed 
in  a  manner  suited  to  the  figurative  language  of  the  context,  is 
the  same  which  is  so  often  elsewhere  stated  as  the  grand  design 
of  the  redemption  of  Christ,  viz.  the  sanctification  of  his  people. 

The  law,  of  which  the  apostle  is  here  speaking,  is  evidently  not 
the  Mosaic  law  merely.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  and  of 
similar  passages,  that  Christ  has  delivered  us  from  the  Jewish 

*  Sed  ultra  progreditur  apostolus,  nempe  solutum  fuisse  legis  vinculum,  non  ut 
nostro  arbitrio  vi\'imus,  sicuti  mulicr  vidua  sui  juris  est,  dum  in  coelibatu  degit ;  scd 
alteri  marito  nos  jam  esse  devinctos:  imo  de  mauu  (quod  aiunt)  in  manum  a  lege 
ad  Christum  transiisse. — Calvin. 


270  ROMANS  7:  1— G. 

economy,  and  left  us  at  liberty  to  embrace  the  simpler  and 
more  spiritual  S5^stem  of  the  gospel.  The  law  of  which  he 
speaks,  is  that  whicli  says,  "  The  man  which  doeth  these  things 
shall  live  by  them,"  ch.  10:  5.  Gal.  3:  10;  that  is,  which  re- 
quires perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  acceptance.  It  is 
that  which  says,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  v.  7:  without  which 
sin  is  dead,  v.  8;  which  is  holy,  just  and  good,  v.  12;  which  is 
spiritual,  v.  14,  &c.  &c.  It  is  that  law  by  whose  works  the 
Gentiles  cannot  be  justified,  ch.  3:  20,  from  whose  curse  Christ 
has  redeemed  not  the  Jews  only,  but  also  the  Gentiles,  Gal.  3: 
13,  14.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Paul  here  means  by  the  law, 
the  will  of  God,  as  a  rule  of  duty,  no  matter  how  revealed. 
From  this  law,  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our  acceptance  with 
God,  Christ  has  delivered  us.  It  is  the  legal  system  which 
says,  "  Do  this  and  live,"  that  Christ  has  abolished  and  intro- 
duced another,  which  says,  "  He  that  believes  shall  be  saved." 
Since,  however,  as  remarked  above  (ch.  6:  14),  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy,  including  the  Mosaic  institutions,  was  the  form 
in  which  the  law,  as  law,  was  ever  present  to  the  minds  of  the 
apostle  and  his  readers;  and  since  deliverance  from  the  legal 
system,  as  such,  involved  deliverance  from  that  economy,  it  is 
not  wonderful  that  reference  to  that  dispensation  should  often 
be  made;  or  that  Paul  sliould  at  times  express  the  idea  of  de- 
liverance from  tlie  law,  as  such,  by  terms  which  would  seem 
to  express  only  deliverance  from  the  particular  form  in  which 
it  was  so  familiar  to  his  readers.  So,  too,  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  we  find  him  constantly  speaking  of  a  return  to  Ju- 
daism as  a  renunciation  of  the  method  of  gratuitous  justifica- 
tion, and  a  recurrence  to  a  reliance  on  the  righteousness  of 
works.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  The  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  apart  from  its  evangelical  import,  which  lay, 
like  a  secondary  sense,  beneath  tlic  covert  of  its  institutions, 
was  but  a  re-enactment  of  the  legal  system.  To  make,  how- 
ever, as  is  so  often  done,  the  whole  meaning  of  the  apostle  to  be, 
that  we  are  freed  from  the  Jewish  law,  is  not  only  inconsistent, 
in  this  place  witli  tlie  context,  and  irreconcilcable  with  many 
express  declarations  of  scrij)ture,  but  distinctive  of  the  whole 
evangelical  character  of  the  doctrine.  How  small  a  pail  of  the 
redemption  of  Christ  is  deliverance  from  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions!   How  slight  the  consolation  to  a  soul,  sensible  of  its  ex- 


ROMANS  7:  1—6.  271 

posure  to  the  wrath  of  God,  to  be  told  that  the  law  of  Moses' 
no  longer  condemns  us!  How  void  of  truth  and  meaning  the 
doctrine,  that  deliverance  from  the  law  is  necessary  to  holiness, 
if  the  law  means  the  Jewish  economy  merely ! 

(5)  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  motions  of  sin, 
which  were  by  the  law,  &c.  The  apostle  having,  in  v.  4, 
stated  that  believers  are  freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  in  this  and  the  following  verse  he  shows  the  necessity 
and  the  consequences  of  this  change.  '  We  have  been  thus 
freed,  because  formerly,  wften  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth 
fruit  unto  death;  but  now,  being  free  from  the  law,  we  are  de- 
voted to  the  service  of  God,'  The  force  of  for,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  verse,  is  therefore  obvious.  The  former  legal  state 
of  believers  is  here  described  by  saying,  they  were  in  the  flesh. 
In  the  language  of  scripture,  the  word  flesh  expresses,  in  such 
connexions,  one  or  the  other  of  two  ideas,  or  both  conjointly. 
First,  a  state  of  moral  corruption,  as  in  ch.  8:  8,  "  Those  that 
are  in  the  flesh;"  secondly,  a  carnal  state,  i.  e.  a  state  in  which 
men  are  subject  to  external  rites,  ceremonies  and  commands;  or, 
more  generally,  a  legal  state,  inasmuch  as  among  the  Jews,  that 
state  was  one  of  subjection  to  such  external  rites.  Gal.  3:  3, 
"  Having  begun  in  the  spirit,  are  ye  now  made  perfect  by  the 
flesh  ?"  Compare  Gal. 4:  9, where  the  expression  "weak  and  beg- 
garly elements"  is  substituted  for  the  phrase  "  the  flesh,"  see 
Rom.  4:  1.  In  the  present  case,  both  ideas  appear  to  be  included. 
The  meaning  is,  '  When  in  your  unrenewed  and  legal  state.' 
The  opposite  condition  is  described  (v.  6)  as  a  state  of  freedom 
from  the  law;  which,  of  course,  shows  that  the  second  of  the 
two  ideas  mentioned  above,  was  prominent  in  the  apostle's 
mind  when  he  used  the  words  "  in  the  flesh," 

The  motions  of  sin,  i.  e.  emotions  or  feelings  of  sin,  for 
sinful  feelings.  JVhich  were  by  the  law  (ra  5id  tou  vo/jlou).  The 
obvious  ellipsis  in  this  clause  may  be  variously  supplied. 
'  Which  are  made  known  by  the  law,'  according  to  ch.  3:  20; 
or  '  which  are  caused  to  abound  by  the  law,'  according  to  ch. 
5:  20;  or  'which  are  produced  by  the  law,'  according  to  v.  S 
of  this  chapter.  The  last  mode  of  explanation  is  decidedly  to 
be  preferred,  because  more  consistent  with  the  context,  and  with 
Paul's  object,  which  required  him  to  show  that  the  law,  instead 
of  producing  holiness,  was  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin. 


272  ROMANS  7:  1—6. 

Did  iimrk  in  our  members  to  bring  forth  sin  unto  death. 
In  our  'inembers  is  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  for  in  us; 
see  ch.  6:  12,  13.  To  bring  forth.  The  infinitive  (s/g  to 
xa^iroapofrfSai)  here  expresses  the  result.  '  Sin  so  wrought  that 
we  brought  fruit,  &c.'  Fruit  unto  death.  Death  is  here  again 
personified;  to  death  (dativus  commodi),  the  advantage  of  death; 
as  opposed  to  the  words  to  God,  at  the  close  of  v.  4.  The  fruit 
which  sin  produced  belonged,  as  it  were,  to  death.  Such  was 
our  condition  when  under  the  law.  Our  present  state  is  pre- 
scribed in  the  next  verse.  ' 

(6)  But  71010  IV e  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being 
dead;*  ivherein  ive  were  held,  &c.  Our  former  state  was  one 
in  the  flesh;  our  present  one  oi  freedom  from  the  law.  If 
the  common  reading  be  adopted,  the  meaning  of  this  passage 
is,  '  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  it  being  dead,  &c.'  But 
the  true  reading,  as  stated  in  the  margin,  requires  the  second 
clause  to  be  rendered  thus,  ive  being  dead.  The  meaning 
then  is,  '  We  are  now  delivered  from  the  law,  being  dead  in 
respect  to  that  by  which  we  were  formerly  held,  &c.'  There 
is  apparently  a  transposition  of  the  members  of  the  sentence; 
their  natural  order  seems  to  be  this,  '  But  now,  being  dead  as 
it  respects  the  law,  by  which  we  were  formerly  held,  we  are 
free,  so  that,  &c.' 

That  we  should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in 
oldness  of  the  letter.  The  result  of  deliverance  from  the  law 
is  here  described.  The  phrases  newness  of  spirit,  and  oldness 
of  the  letter,  according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  mean 
a  new  spirit  and  old  letter.  The  word  rendered  letter  means 
something  written;  then  the  law  as  written,  or  the  written  law; 
ch.  2:  27.  2  Cor.  3:  6,  "ministers  of  the  New  Testament;  not 
of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit  (i.  e.  not  of  the  law,  but  of  gospel) ; 


*  Our  version,  which  is  founded  on  the  received  text,  assumes  the  reading 
(XToSavovTos,  which,  however,  is  found  in  none  of  the  manuscripts.  The  true 
reading  is  probably  ctTroSavovTSs,  which  is  found  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  1,  2,  4,  7,  14, 
17,  18,  19,  21,  22,  23,  29,  30,  31,33,  34,  36,  39,  41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49,52, 
55,  65,  66;  in  both  the  Syriac  versions,  and  in  the  Armenian,  Coptic,  and  Ethiopic  ; 
in  almost  all  the  (ireek,  and  in  some  of  the  Latin  fathers.  It  is  adopted  in  the 
Complutensian  edition,  and  in  those  of  Erasmus,  Aldus,  Colinaeus,  Stephens,  Ben- 
gel,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Lachmann.  The  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  the 
Latin  Vulgate  (nunc  autem  soluti  sumus  a  lege  mortis,  in  qua  detinebamur,  &c.), 
and  some  of  (he  Latin  fathers  read  tou  Savarou. 


ROMANS  7:  1—6.  273 

for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life;"  i.  e.  the  law 
condemns,  but  the  gospel  secures  life.  The  sense  of  this  pas- 
sage, therefore,  is,  '  We  serve  God  in  the  exercise  of  a  new 
spirit,  or  in  a  new  spiritual  state;  and  not  in  bondage  to  the  old 
written  law,  or  in  our  old  legal  state.'  It  is  evident  that  the 
clause  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter  is  substituted  by  the  apostle 
for  the  expressions  under  the  law  and  in  the  flesh;  all  which 
he  uses  to  describe  the  legal  and  corrupt  condition  of  men,  prior 
to  the  believing  reception  of  the  gospel. 

This  clause  may  be  differently  explained.  As  the  word  God 
is  not  used  by  the  apostle  after  serve,  he  may  intend  to  say, 
*  We  serve  a  new  spirit,*  and  not  an  old  letter;'  i.  e.  '  We  serve 
the  gospel,  and  not  the  law;'  compare  2  Cor.  3:  6.  Or  the 
result  of  the  change  is,  that '  We  serve  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not 
the  old  written  law.'  The  interpretation  fii'st  given,  however, 
is  much  the  most  simple,  and  most  consistent  with  the  context. 
Believers,  then,  are  free  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ; 
they  are  no  longer  under  the  old  covenant  which  said  "  Do 
this,  and  live;"  but  are  introduced  into  a  new  and  gracious 
state,  in  which  they  are  accepted,  not  for  what  they  do,  but  for 
what  has  been  done  for  them.  Instead  of  having  the  legal  and 
slavish  spirit,  which  arose  from  their  former  relation  to  God, 
they  have  the  feelings  of  children. 

Doctrines. 

1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is  that  taught  in  v.  14 
of  the  preceding  chapter,  viz.  that  believers  are  not  under  a 
legal  system;  and  that  the  consequence  of  their  freedom  is  not 
the  indulgence  of  sin,  but  the  service  of  God,  v.  4. 

2.  This  deliverance  from  the  law  is  not  effected  by  setting 
the  law  aside,  or  by  disregarding  its  demands;  but  by  those 
demands  being  satisfied  in  the  person  of  Christ,  v.  4.  ch.  10:  4. 

3.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  redemption  is  in  order  to 
holiness.  We  are  delivered  from  the  law  that  we  may  l)e 
united  to  Christ,  and  we  are  united  to  Christ,  that  we  may 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,  v.  4,  &c. 

*  The  preposition  h  being  considered  redundant  before  the  dative,  as  it  may  be 
in  1  Cor.  'Z :  6,  and  elsewhere. 

35 


274  ROMANS  7:  1—6. 

4.  Legal  or  self-righteous  strivings  after  holiness  can  never 
be  successful.  The  relation  in  which  they  suppose  the  soul  to 
stand  to  God,  is,  from  its  nature,  productive  of  evil,  and  not  of 
holy  feelings,  v.  5. 

5.  Actual  freedom  from  the  bondage  and  penalty  of  the  law, 
is  always  attended  and  manifested  by  a  filial  temper  and  obe- 
dience, V.  6. 

6.  The  doctrine  concerning  marriage,  which  is  here  inci- 
dentally taught,  or  rather  which  is  assumed  as  known  to  Jews 
and  Christians,  is,  that  the  marriage  contract  can  only  be  dis- 
solved by  death.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  given  by 
Christ,  Matt.  5:  32;  unless  indeed  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  7:  15, 
recognises  wilful  and  final  desertion  as  a  sufficient  ground  of 
divorce,  vs.  2,  3. 

Remarks. 

1.  As  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  obtain  deliverance  from 
the  law  is  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  exercise  of  faith  in  him 
is  essential  to  holiness.  When  we  lose  our  confidence  in  Christ, 
we  fall  under  the  power  of  the  law,  and  relapse  into  sin.  Every 
thing  depends,  therefore,  upon  our  maintaining  our  union  with 
Christ.     "Without  me,  ye  can  do  nothing,"  v.  4. 

2.  The  only  evidence  of  union  with  Christ  is  bringing  forth 
fruit  unto  God,  v.  4. 

3.  As  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  in  order  to 
holiness,  it  is  vain  to  expect  that  deliverance,  except  with  a 
view  to  the  end  for  which  it  is  granted,  v.  4. 

4.  Conversion  is  a  great  change;  sensible  to  him  that  expe- 
riences it,  and  visible  to  others.  It  is  a  change  from  a  legal  and 
slavish  state,  to  one  of  filial  confidence;  manifesting  itself  by 
the  renunciation  of  the  service  of  sin,  and  by  devotion  to  the 
service  of  God,  v.  G. 

5.  A  contract  so  lasting  as  that  of  marriage,  and  of  which  the 
consequences  are  so  important,  should  not  be  entered  into 
lightly,  but  in  the  fear  of  God,  vs.  2,  3. 

6.  The  practice,  common  in  many  of  the  Protestant  countries 
of  Europe,  and  in  many  states  of  this  Union,  of  granting  divorces 
on  the  ground  of  cruel  treatment,  or  '  incompatibility  of  tem- 
per,' is  in  direct  contravention  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of 
the  bible  on  this  subject,  vs.  2,  3. 


ROMANS  7:  7—13.  375 

CHAP.  7:  7—13. 
Analysis. 
Paul,  having  shown  that  we  must  be  delivered  from  the  law 
in  order  to  our  justification  (chs.  3,  4),  and  that  this  freedom 
was  no  less  necessary  in  order  to  sanctification  (ch.  6.  ch.  7: 
1  — 6),  comes  now  to  explain  more  fully  than  he  had  previously 
done,  what  was  the  use  and  effect  of  the  law.  This  is  the  object 
of  the  residue  of  this  chapter.  The  apostle  shows  first,  vs. 
7 — 13,  that  the  law  produces  conviction  of  sin,  agreeably  to  his 
declaration  in  ch.  3:  20;  and,  secondly,  vs.  14 — 25,  that  it 
enlightens  the  believer's  conscience,  but  cannot  destroy  the 
dominion  of  sin.  This  section,  therefore,  may  be  advantageously 
divided  into  two  parts.  Paul  introduces  the  subject,  as  is  usual 
with  him,  by  means  of  an  idea  intimately  associated  with  the 
preceding  discussion.  He  had  been  insisting  on  the  necessity 
of  deliverance  from  the  law.  Why?  Because  it  is  evil?  No; 
but  because  it  cannot  produce  holiness.  It  can  produce  only 
the  knowledge  and  the  sense  of  sin;  which  are  the  constituents 
of  genuine  conviction.  These  two  effects  are  attributed  to  the 
operation  of  the  law,  the  former  in  v.  7,  the  latter  in  v.  S. 
These  ideas  are  amplified  in  vs.  9,  10,  11.  The  inference  is 
drawn  in  v.  12,  that  the  law  is  good;  and  in  v.  13,  that  the  evil 
which  it  incidentally  produces  is  to  be  attributed  to  sin,  the 
exceeding  turpitude  of  which  becomes  thus  t-he  more  apparent. 

Commentary. 

(7)  What  shall  ive  say  then?  Is  the  law  sin?  Far  from 
it,  &c.  The  apostle  asks  whether  it  is  to  be  inferred,  either 
from  the  general  doctrine  of  the  preceding  section,  respecting 
the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  or  from  the  special 
declaration  made  in  v.  5,  respecting  the  law's  producing  sin, 
that  the  law  was  itself  evil  ?  He  answers,  by  no  means;  and 
shows,  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  effect  ascribed  to  the  law,  in 
V.  5,  is  merely  incidental.  Is  the  laiv  sin  ?  means  either.  Is 
the  law  evil?  or  is  it  the  cause  of  sin?  see  Micah  1:  5,  'Sa- 
maria is  the  sin  of  Jacob.'  The  former  is  best  suited  to  the 
context,  because  Paul  admits  that  the  law  is  incidentally  pro- 
ductive of  sin. 

Nay,  I  hud  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law.     The  word 


276  ROMANS  7:  7—13. 

rendered  nay  very  often  signifies  on  the  contrary,  and  may  be 
so  translated  here.  ^  So  far  from  the  law  being  evil,  it  is,  on  the 
contrary,  of  the  greatest  use,  for  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by 
the  law.'  /  had  not  known  sin.  The  will  of  God,  which  is 
the  rule  of  right  and  wrong,  is  the  source  of  all  knowledge  of 
what  is  morally  good  or  evil.  This  law  is  revealed  partially  in 
the  very  constitution  of  our  nature;  and  more  fully  in  the 
scriptures.  The  more  enlarged  and  spiritual  our  views  of  this 
law,  the  clearer  our  knowledge  of  the  extent  and  evil  of  sin. 

For  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said  thou 
shall  not  covet.  The  meaning  of  this  member  of  the  sentence 
depends  upon  the  sense  given  io  for.  It  may  be  confirmatory, 
or  merely  illustrative.  If  the  former,  the  sense  is,  '  I  had  not 
known  sin,  but  by  the  law,  for  I  had  not  known  that  the  mere 
inward  desire  was  evil,  had  not  the  law  said,  &c.'  Or  retaining 
the  same  force  of  this  particle, '  I  had  not  known  the  real  inward 
fountain  of  sin,  viz.  concupiscence,  except  the  law  had  said,  &c.' 
According  to  this  view,  which  is  the  one  most  commonly 
adopted,  the  word  rendered  hist  (s-TriSufjiia)  refers  to  the  corrupt 
disposition  of  the  heart,  considered  as  the  root  or  source  of  sin.* 
li  for  (ydf)  be  considered  as  merely  illustrative,  the  sense  is 
this:  '  I  had  not  known  sin  except  by  the  law;  for  example,  I 
had  not  known  concupiscence,  had  not  the  law  said,  &c.'  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  concupiscence  does  not  differ  from  the  more 
general  term  sin,  jexcept  as  being  adduced  as  an  example  of  the 
evils  to  the  knowledge  of  which  the  law  leads.  It  seems  probable 
that  the  first  interpretation  is  the  more  correct  of  the  two.  At 
least,  that  the  apostle  designedly  referred  to  an  inward,  spiritual 


•  Ich  crkiinnte  die  Siindc  uberhaupt  nirht,  weil  ich  auf  die  innere  Wurzcl 
dersclben  nicht  aufmcrksam  gewordcn  war. — Tiioluck. 

Idco  dixi,  Paulum  hie  altius  conscenderc,  quam  ferat  communis  hominum  captus. 
Nam  politicac  quidcm  leges  consilia  se,  non  cvcntus  punire  clamant :  philosophi 
etiam  subtilius  tarn  vitia  quam  virtutcs  locant  in  animo  :  sed  Deus  hoc  praecepto 
ad  concupiscentiam  usque  penetrat,  quae  voluntate  occultior  est :  itaque  vitii  loco 
noncensetur.  Ncc  taiitum  apud  philosophos  veniam  obtinuit,  sed  hodie  acritcr  con- 
tendunt  Papistac,  in  regcnitis  non  esse  peccatum.  Atqui  Paulus  se  rcatum  suum 
deprehendisse  ex  hoc  latentc  morbo  dicit  Unde  sequitur  quicunque  co  laborant, 
minime  esse  cxousabiles,  nisi  quatnnis  culpam  Deus  ignoscit.  Tenenda  interim 
est  ilia  distinctio  inter  pravas  libidiiies,  quae  ad  consensum  usque  perveniunt,  et 
concupiscentiani,  quae  sic  corda  titillat  ct  alficit,  ut  in  medio  impulsu  subsistat. — 


ROMANS  7:  7—13.  277 

sin,  in  order  the  more  clearly  to  confirm  his  declaration.  That 
certain  outward  actions  were  wrong,  he  and  all  other  Pharisees 
knew,  and  were  ready  to  admit;  but  that  God  took  cognizance 
of  the  heart,  and  of  its  most  secret  workings,  and  even  of  its 
habits  or  dispositions,  they  were  less  disposed  to  imagine;  and 
were,  therefore,  deplorably  ignorant  of  the  extent  and  turpitude 
of  their  depravity  in  his  sight. 

(8)  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment, 
wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupisce7ice,  &c.  This  verse 
is  not  to  be  connected  logically  with  the  last  member  of  the 
preceding  one.  It  is  rather  co-ordinate  with  it,  and  is  a  virtual 
answer  to  the  question,  Is  the  law  evil  ?  To  this  question, 
Paul  replies,  in  v.  7,  No;  on  the  contrary,  it  leads  to  the 
knowledge  of  sin.  And  then,  in  v.  8,  he  adds,  it  is  not  evil  in 
itself,  although  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin  in  us.  Sin  in  this 
passage,  must  mean  the  sinful  disposition  of  the  heart,  or  our 
corrupt  nature,*  because  it  is  said  to  produce  all  kinds  of 
concupiscence;  that  is,  every  kind  of  evil  desire.  These  desires 
are  the  fruit  and  evidence  of  this  corrupt  state  of  the  heart. 
Taking  occasion.  The  word  rendered  occasion  (dcpoPix-rj)  is 
used  for  any  thing  which  afibrds  an  advantage  for  the  perform- 
ance of  any  thing  else.  The  word  occasion  or  opportunity, 
referring  properly  to  mere  fitness  of  time,  is  not  so  appropriate 
a  translation  as  the  more  general  term  advantage. 

The  words  by  the  commandment  may  be  connected  either 
with  the  preceding  or  the  following  clause.  If  the  former 
mode  of  construction  be  adopted,  the  passage  means,  '  Sin, 
taking  advantage  of  the  commandment,  wrought  in  me,  &c.' 
If  the  latter,  '  Sin,  taking  advantage,  by  the  commandment 
wrought  in  me,  &c.'  Our  version  is  commonly  pointed  accord- 
ing to  the  former  method,  wuth  a  comma  after  commandment. 
The  original,  however,  is  in  favour  of  the  latter;  and  so  is  the 
context.  Paul's  object  is  to  show  that  by  the  law  sin  is  ex- 
cited and  aroused;  and,  in  the  following  verses,  he  uses  similar 
expressions,  as  "  by  it  slew  me,"  v.  11;  "  working  death  in  me 
by  that  which  is  good,"  v.  13.  The  apostle,  therefore,  teaches, 
that  the  effect  of  the  law  operating  upon  our  corrupt  hearts,  is 
to  arouse  their  evil  passions,  and  to  lead  to  the  desire  of  the 

*  'AfJia^Tia  non  potest  esse  hoc  loco peccatiim  Ipsum — sod  ipsa  potius  prava  et 
ad  peccandum  proclivis  indoles,  vitiosa  hominis  natura,  vitiositas  ipsa. — Koppe. 


278  ROMANS  7:  7—13. 

very  objects  which  the  law  forbids.  This  is  a  matter  of  univer- 
sal experience.  The  same  sentiment  is,  therefore,  often  met 
with  in  profane  writers.*  Nitimur  in  vetitum,  cupimiisqiie 
negata,  '  We  strive  for  what  is  forbidden,  and  desire  what  is 
denied,'  has  become  a  proverb. 

For  without  the  law,  sin  was  dead.\  To  say  that  a  thing 
is  dead,  is  to  say  that  it  is  inactive,  unproductive  and  unob- 
served. All  this  may  be  said  of  sin  prior  to  the  operation  of 
the  law.  It  is  comparatively  inoperative  and  unknown  until 
aroused  and  brought  to  light  by  the  law.  There  are  two  effects 
of  the  law  included  in  this  declaration,  the  excitement  of  evil 
passions,  and  the  discovery  of  them,  Calvin  makes  the  latter 
much  the  more  prominent. f  But  the  context,  and  the  analo- 
gous declarations  in  the  succeeding  verses,  seem  to  require  the 
former  to  be  considered  as  the  most  important.  The  law,  then, 
is  not  evil,  but  it  produces  the  conviction  of  sin,  by  teaching  us 
what  sin  is,  v.  7,  and  by  making  us  conscious  of  the  existence 
and  power  of  this  evil  in  our  own  hearts,  v.  S.§ 

In  the  following  verses,  9 — 11,  we  find  an  amplification  and 
confirmation  of  the  sentiment  of  vs.  7,  8,  showing  more  fully 
the  operation  of  the  law.  Paul  is  here  describing  his  own  ex- 
perience. This  is  obvious,  not  only  because  he  uses  the  first 
person  singular  throughout  the  passage,  but  because  the  exer- 
cises here  detailed  are  more  or  less  distinctly  those  of  every 
true  Christian;  and,  consequently,  those  of  the  apostle.  Paul 
describes,  in  figurative  language,  his  state  before  the  operation 
of  the  law  upon  his  mind,  and  after  it  began  to  produce  its 
proper  cfiect.  In  the  former  state,  he  was  alive,  and  sin  was 
dead;  in  the  latter,  sin  became  alive,  and  he  died, 

*  See  numerous  examples  quoted  by  Wetstei.v. 

f  Tliis  clause  is  by  many  connected  with  the  following?  verse.  So  Bcngel, 
Lachmaiin  and  other  editors,  Calvin  renders  it  as  a  general  proposition,  "  With- 
out the  law  sin  is  dead."  As  the  verb  is  not  expressed  in  the  original,  the  context 
alone  can  decide  what  tense  ought  to  be  preferred. 

t  Ad  cogTiitionem  praecipue  refero,  acsi  dictum  foret :  Detexit  in  me  omnem 
concupisccntiam  :  quaedum  lateret,  quodammodo  nulla  esse  ^'idcbatu^. 

§  Ehe  dem  Mensclien  ein  vo'fJiog  cntwcder  von  aussen  gegeben  wird,  oder  in 
ihm  selbst  sich  entwickelt,  so  ist  die  SUndhaftigkeit  zwar  in  ihm,  als  Anlage,  aber 
sie  ist  todt,  d.  h.  sie  ist  ihm  noch  nicht  zuin  Bewusstseyn  gekommen,  well  noch 
kein  Widerstreit  zwischen  seiner  Siindhafligkeit  und  cinom  (Jebote  in  ihm  cntstehen 
konnte. — Ustehi  Jjchrbegrill"  Pauli,  p.  ^5,  as  quoted  by  Tuoluck., 


ROMANS  7:  7—13.  279 

(9)  For  I  tons  alive  tvithoiit  the  law  once;  hut  when  the 
commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died.  The  word  for 
connects  this  verse  logically  with  the  two  preceding,  '  The  law 
produces  conviction  of  sin,  for  I  was  alive,  &c.'  Without  the 
law,  i.  e.  the  law  being  absent,  as  it  is  opposed  to  the  expression, 
when  the  commandment  came.  This  phrase  describes  the  state 
of  Paul,  and  of  every  Christian,  before  conviction  of  sin.  He 
was  without  a  proper  apprehension  of  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  law,  which  is  real  ignorance  of  it.  Of  course,  as  the  law  is 
the  rule  of  duty,  he  was  unaware  of  the  number  and  magnitude 
of  his  sins.  In  this  state  he  was  alive.  Life  is  a  common  figure 
not  only  for  activity,  but  happiness,  including,  among  other 
ideas,  those  of  peace  and  security.  The  meaning  here  is, '  I  was 
at  peace  with  myself;  unaware  of  the  dreadful  opposition  of 
my  heart  to  the  nature  and  requirements  of  God;  and  conse- 
quently unapprehensive  of  the  danger  to  which,  by  that  oppo- 
sition, I  was  exposed.' 

But  when  the  commandment  came,  &c.  That  is,  when  I 
obtained  proper  views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  law,  then 
two  consequences  followed,  sin  revived,  and  I  died.  As  by 
sin's  being  dead  was  meant  that  it  was  inactive  and  unobserved, 
so  by  its  reviving  must  be  intended,  that  it  was  roused  from  its 
torpor;  its  opposition  to  all  that  is  good  was  excited  by  the  clear 
exhibition  of  the  law,  and  consequently  it  was  no  longer  an 
unobserved  or  unknown  evil.  The  sense  of  its  existence,  power, 
and  turpitude,  became  clear  and  strong.  The  result  of  this  effect 
of  the  law,  Paul  expresses  by  saying,  and  I  died.  That  is, 
*  I  became  miserable;  because  aware  of  the  evil  that  was  in  me, 
and  of  the  danger  to  which  1  was  exposed.'  Self-satisfaction 
and  sense  of  security  fled  before  the  light  of  the  law.* 

(10)  Jind  the  covfimandment  which  was  unto  life,  I  found 
to  be  unto  death.  Life  and  death  are  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
opposed  to  each  other;  the  one  standing  for  happiness,  the  other 
for  misery.  The  commandment,  which  was  designed  and 
adapted  to  lead  men  to  happiness  and  the  true  end  of  their 
being,  becomes  productive  of  misery,  by  making  them  sensible 
of  their  corruption  and  exposure  to  condemnation.  Through- 
out the  whole  of  this  passage  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Paul 

*  Mors  peccati  vita  est  hominis  ;  ruvsum  vita  pcccati  mors  hominis. — Calvix. 


2S0  ROMANS  7:  7— 13. 

attributes  to  the  law,  not  only  the  knowledge  of  sin,  but  tbe 
excitement  of  it.  It  produces  "  the  motions  of  sin,"  or  sinful 
desires,  v.  5;  it  works  ail  manner  of  concupiscence,  v.  8;  it 
revives  sin,  v.  9;  it  seduces  into  sin,  v.  11.  In  the  death, 
therefore,  which  it  produces,  the  idea  of  sin  as  well  as  misery 
is  to  be  included;  and  in  the  life,  to  which  it  was  designed  to 
lead,  the  ideas  of  holiness  and  happiness  are  both  embraced. 

(11)  For  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  de- 
ceived me,  and  by  it  slew  me.  This  verse  assigns  the  reason 
of  the  law's  being  the  cause  of  death,  and  hence  is  connected 
by  for  with  v.  10.  The  proper  pointing  of  this  passage  is 
doubtful.  In  our  version  it  is  commonly  pointed  thus,  "  For 
sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  deceived  me,  &c." 
But  for  the  reasons  assigned  on  v.  8,  the  words  by  the  com- 
mandment should  be  connected  with  the  subsequent,  rather 
than  with  the  antecedent  clause.  It  was  by  the  commandment 
that  sin  deceived,  &c.  The  law  is  therefore  the  cause  of  death, 
not  directly,  or  in  virtue  of  its  own  nature  or  tendency,  but 
incidentally  only.  Sin  makes  it  such;  for  the  evil  disposition 
of  the  heart  avails  itself  even  of  the  law  to  lead  us  into  sin.  The 
word  rendered  to  deceive,  means  also  to  seduce;  which  sense  is 
better  suited  to  this  passage.  The  idea,  therefore,  is  the  same 
as  that  before  expressed, '  our  corrupt  hearts  make  even  the  law 
the  means  of  causing  us  to  sin.'  Jind  by  it  slew  tne,  i.  e.  ren- 
dered me  miserable,  at  once  unholy  and  unhappy.  'It  made 
me  sensible  that  I  was  sunk  in  hopeless  corruption  and  ruin.' 

(12)  Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment 
holy,  just  and  good.  The  conclusion  from  the  foregoing  exhi- 
bition of  the  effect  of  the  law  is,  that  it  is  not  to  be  blamed  for 
the  evil  which  it  incidentally  produces.  In  v.  9,  Paul  uses 
the  words  laiv  and  commandment  as  perfectly  synonymous; 
here  they  are  distinguished.  The  law  collectively,  and  each 
command  separately,  are  alike  holy,  &c.  The  word  holy,  in 
the  first  clause,  expresses  general  excellence,  freedom  from  all 
fault;  and  contains  all  that  is  expressed  by  the  three  terms  of 
the  second  clause,  where  holy  means  pure,  just  means  reason- 
able, and  good,  benevolent,  or  tending  to  happiness.  The  law 
is  in  every  way  excellent. 

(13)  Was  then  that  which  is  good  made  death  unto  me  ? 
God  forbid,  &c.     With  a  view  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  its 


ROMANS  7:  7—13.  281 

being  supposed  that  he  thought  disrespectfully  of  this  holy  law 
of  God,  the  apostle  again  denies  that  it  is  directly  the  cause  of 
sin,  but  shows  that  our  own  corruption  is  the  real  source  of  the 
evil.  Made  death,  agreeably  to  what  has  been  said  above, 
means  '  made  the  cause  of  sin  and  misery.'  The  law  is  not 
this  cause. 

But  sin,  that  it  might  appear  sin,  ivorking  death  in 
me  by  that  which  is  good;  that  sin  hy  the  commandm,ent 
might  become  exceeding  sinful.  The  grammatical  construc- 
tion of  this  part  of  the  verse  is,  in  the  original,  very  doubtful, 
and,  in  our  version,  inaccurate.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  con- 
sists of  two  clauses,  each  beginning  with  that;  "  that  it  might 
appear"  (i'va  (pav^);  and  "that  it  might  become"  (I'va  ys'v>]Tai). 
The  latter  of  these  clauses  may  depend  upon  the  fqrmer;  and 
the  participle  ivorking  (xaTseya^oiiiMri)  be  taken  Hebraically  for 
a  verb.  The  sense  is  then  plain  and  good.  '  The  law  is  not 
the  cause  of  death,  but  sin,  that  it  might  appear  sin,  wrought 
death  in  me  by  that  which  is  good;  that  thus  it  might  become 
exceeding  sinful.'  So  Calvin,*  and  others.  This,  however, 
does  violence  to  the  text,  as  the  participle  cannot  properly  be 
taken  here  as  a  verb.  Otlicrs,  therefore,  make  the  clauses  co- 
ordinate, both  depending  upon  the  first  words  of  the  sentence. 
^  The  law  is  not  the  cause  of  death,  but  sin  is,  that  it  might  ap- 
pear sin,  working  death  in  me  by  that  which  is  good;  that  is, 
that  it  might  become  exceeding  sinful,  &c.'  So  Beza,t  and 
others.  There  are  several  other  methods  by  which  the  con- 
struction may  be  explained;  but  the  general  sense  remains  the 
same.  That  it  might  appear  ivorking,  i.  e.  might  be  appre- 
hended in  its  true  character  from  its  effects.  Sin,  therefore,  and 
not  the  law,  is  the  cause  of  death.  And  the  turpitude  and  enor- 
mity of  sin  are  made  the  more  conspicuous  by  the  law,  inasmuch 
as  it  makes  even  that  which  is  in  itself  good  a  source  of  evil. 

Doctrines. 
1.  The  law,  althougli  it  cannot  secure  either  the  justification 
or  sanctification  of  men,  answers  an  essential  part  in  the  economy 

*  Imo  peccatum,  lit  apparcat  pcccatum,  per  bonum  opcratur  mihi  mortem  ;  ut 
fiat  supra  modum  pcccans  pcccatum  per  mandatum. 

f  Ut  appareat  esse  peccatum,  mihi  per  id  quod  bonum  est  efficiens  mortem,  id 
est  ut  peccatum  fieret  admodum  pcccatum  per  illud  praeceptum. 

36 


282  ROMANS  7:  7—13. 

of  salvation.  It  enlightens  conscience  and  secures  its  verdict 
against  a  multitude  of  evils,  which  we  should  not  otherwise 
have  recognized  as  sins.  It,  therefore,  produces  that  state  of 
mind,  which  is  a  necessary  preparation  for  the  reception  of  the 
gospel,  vs.  7,  8. 

2.  Conviction  of  sin,  that  is,  an  adequate  knowledge  of  its 
nature,  and  a  sense  of  its  power  over  us,  is  an  indispensable 
part  of  evangelical  religion.  Before  the  gospel  can  be  embraced 
as  a  means  of  deliverance  from  sin,  we  must  feel  that  we  are 
involved  in  corruption  and  misery,  v.  9. 

3.  The  law  of  God  is  a  transcript  of  his  own  nature,  holy, 
just  and  good.  The  clearer  our  views  of  its  extent  and  excel- 
lence, the  deeper  will  be  our  sense  of  our  own  unworthiness, 
vs.  9,  12. 

4.  Sin  is  exceeding  sinful.  Its  turpitude  is  manifested  by 
the  fact,  that  the  exhibition  of  holiness  rouses  it  into  opposition; 
and  that  the  holy  law  itself  is  made  incidentally  to  increase  its 
virulence  and  power,  v.  13. 

5.  Sin  is  very  deadly.  It  extracts  death  from  the  means  of 
life,  and  cannot  exist  unattended  by  misery,  vs.  10 — 13. 

Remarks. 

1.  How  miserable  the  condition  of  those  whose  religion  is  all 
law!  vs.  7—13. 

2.  Though  the  law  cannot  save  us,  it  must  prepare  us  for  sal- 
vation. It  should,  therefore,  be  carefully  and  faithfully  preached, 
both  in  its  extent  and  authority,  vs.  7,  S. 

3.  It  must  be  wrong  and  productive  of  evil,  so  to  describe 
the  nature  of  evangelical  religion,  as  to  make  the  impression 
that  it  is  a  mere  change  in  the  main  object  of  pursuit;  the 
choice  of  one  source  of  happiness  in  preference  to  another.  It 
is  a  return  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  purpose  of 
being  delivered  from  sin  and  devoted  to  his  service.  Its  first 
step  is  the  conviction  that  we  arc  sinners,  and,  as  such,  dead, 
i.  e.  helpless,  corrupt  and  miserable,  vs.  7,  1 3. 

4.  Nothing  is  more  inconsistent  with  true  religion  than  self- 
complacency.  Because  the  more  holy  we  are,  the  clearer  our 
views  of  God's  law;  and  the  clearer  our  views  of  tlic  law,  the 
deeper  our  sense  of  sin,  and,  consequently,  the  greater  must  be 
our  humility,  vs.  12,  13. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  283 

5.  If  our  religious  experience  does  not  correspond  with  that 
of  the  people  of  God,  as  detailed  in  the  scriptures,  we  cannot 
be  true  Christians.  Unless  we  have  felt  as  Paul  felt,  we  have 
not  the  religion  of  Paul,  and  cannot  expect  to  share  his  re- 
ward, vs.  7 — 13. 

CHAP.  7:  14—25. 

Analysis. 
The  apostle,  having  exhibited  the  operation  of  the  law  in 
producing  conviction  of  sin,  comes  now  to  show  its  effect  on 
the  mind  of  the  believer.  It  cannot  secure  his  sanctification. 
The  cause  of  this  inability  is  not  in  the  evil  nature  of  the  law, 
which  is  spiritual,  v.  14;  but  in  the  power  of  indwelling  sin,  "  I 
am  carnal,"  says  the  apostle,  "sold  under  sin,"  v.  14.  As  this 
is  not  only  a  strong,  but  an  ambiguous  expression,  Paul  immedi- 
ately explains  his  meaning.  He  does  not  intend  to  say  that  he 
was  given  up  to  the  willing  service  of  sin;  but  that  he  was  in  the 
condition  of  a  slave,  whose  acts  are  not  always  the  evidence  of 
his  inclination.  His  will  may  be  one  way,  but  his  master  may 
direct  him  another.  So  it  is  with  the  believer.  He  does  what 
he  hates,  and  omits  to  do  what  he  approves,  v.  15.  This  is  a 
description  of  slavery,  and  a  clear  explanation  of  what  is  in- 
tended by  the  expression  "  sold  under  sin."  There  are  two 
obvious  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  this  fact.  The  one  is,  that 
the  believer,  while  denying  the  sufficiency  of  the  law,  and 
maintaining  the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  it,  bears  an  in- 
ward testimony  to  its  excellence.  He  feels  and  admits  that  the 
law  is  good,  v.  16;  for  it  is  the  law  which  he  approves,  and  the 
transgression  of  it  he  hates,  as  slated  in  the  preceding  verse. 
The  second  inference  is,  tliat  acts  thus  performed,  are  not  the 
true  criterion  of  character.  "  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that 
do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  v.  17.  The  acts  of  a  slave 
arc  indeed  his  own  acts,  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full 
assent  and  consent  of  his  soul,  they  are  not  fair  tests  of  tlie  real 
state  of  his  feelings.  The  propriety  and  truth  of  this  represen- 
tation of  the  state  of  the  believer,  and  of  the  influence  of  the 
law,  is  re-asserted  and  confirmed  in  vs.  18 — 20.  The  law  pre- 
sents duty  clearly;  the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  believer 
assent  to  its  excellence;  but  what  can  the  law  do  in  destroying 


284  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

the  power  of  our  inward  corruptions  ?  These  evil  principles 
remain,  as  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  in  full  force.  The  au- 
thoritative declaration  that  a  thing  must  not  be  done,  does  not 
destroy  the  inclination  to  do  it. 

The  result,  therefore,  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  assent  of 
the  mind  to  the  excellence  of  the  law,  the  power  of  sin  remains, 
so  that  when  we  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  us,  v.  21. 
We  delight  in  the  law  after  the  inward  man,  but  this  does  not 
destroy  the  power  of  sin  in  our  members,  vs.  22,  23.  This 
inward  conflict  the  law  can  never  end.  It  only  makes  us  sen- 
sible of  our  helpless  and  degraded  condition,  v.  24;  and  drives 
us  to  seek  victory,  whence  alone  it  can  be  obtained,  i.  e.  as  the 
gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  v.  25. 

Co^nmcntary. 

(14)  For  IOC  knoiv  that  the  hnv  is  .spir'tliial;  hut  I  am 
carnal,  sold  under  sin.  The  connexion  between  this  verse 
and  the  preceding  passage  seems  to  be  this.  It  had  been 
asserted  in  v.  5,  that  the  law  was  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin. 
This  result,  however,  was  no  reflection  on  the  law;  for  it  was 
holy,  just  and  good,  v.  12.  As  the  fact,  that  the  law  excites 
sin,  is  consistent  with  its  being  good,  so  is  also  the  fact  that  it 
cannot  destroy  the  power  of  sin.  The  law  indeed  is  spiritual, 
but  we  are  carnal.  The  fault  is  again  in  us.  Accordingto  this 
view,  yb/',  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  is  rather  a  particle  of 
transition,  or,  at  most,  of  illustration;  and  not  of  conflrmation  or 
inference.  Paul,  according  to  our  version,  says,  JVe  knoio 
(oWctjxsv);  the  original,  however,  admits  of  the  rendering  / 
know  indeed  {^ol^a  fAs'v);  which  is  more  consistent  with  the  use 
of  tlie  flrst  person  singular  throughout  the  cliaptcr.  The  former 
reading  is  commonly  adopted. 

The  law  is  spiritnal.  The  word  s])iritual  is  here  expressive 
of  general  excellence,  and  includes  all  that  is  meant  by  holy, 
just  and  good,  in  v.  12.  This  use  of  the  word  is  easily 
accounted  for.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  source  of  all  excellence; 
hence,  the  term  sjjiritual,  when  applied  to  any  thing  of  which 
he  is  the  author,  implies  that  it  derives  its  nature  and  character 
from  the  Spirit.  Carnal,  on  the  other  hand,  is  apj)lied  to  any 
thing  wiiich  derives  its  nature  and  character  from  the  flesh. 
Hence,  "things  of  the  Spirit,"  "  fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  &c.,  are 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  285 

good  things,  or  good  fruits,  ch.  S:  5.  Gal.  5:  22;  and  "things 
of  the  flesh,"  "  works  of  the  flesh,"  &c.,  are  evil  works.  As  it 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures  that  men  are  entirely  depraved, 
or  destitute  of  holiness,  in  their  natural  state,  the  word  flesh, 
which  is  the  scriptural  designation  of  men  (as  in  the  frequent 
expressi'ons,  "all  flesh,"  "no  flesh  living,"  &c.),is  used  for  that 
which  is  corrupt,  or  for  human  nature  considered  apart  from 
divine  influence,  ch.  S:  1 — 11,  John  3:  5,  6,  and  other  passages 
too  numerous  to  he  cited.  To  be  carnal,  therefore,  when 
spoken  of  men,  means  to  be  under  the  government  of  the  flesh, 
or  of  natural  principles  merely;  and  to  be  spiritual  is  to  he 
under  the  government  of  the  Spirit,  When  spoken  of  things, 
to  be  carnal  is  to  be  corrupt;  to  be  spiritual  is  to  be  holy 
or  excellent.  The  law  is  thus  excellent.  It  is  an  emanation 
from  the  Spirit  of  God;  a  transcript  of  his  nature,  and  of  course 
partakes  of  his  character.  But  we  are  carnal,  under  the  govern- 
ment of  a  corrupt  nature.  There  is,  therefore,  a  necessary  op- 
position between  the  character  and  requirements  of  the  law, 
and  our  hearts.  This,  and  not  any  evil  in  the  law,  is  the  true 
reason  why  the  law^  cannot  effect  our  deliverance  from  sin. 
The  evil  is  too  deep  to  be  destroyed  by  the  mere  objective 
presentation  of  excellence. 

Sold  under  sin,  that  is,  a  slave  to  sin.  As  slaves  were  pro- 
cured by  purchase,  a  person  sold  to  another  was  his  slave.  The 
expression  in  the  text  is  ambiguous.  It  may  mean  that  one  is 
entirely  devoted  to  the  service  of  sin,  as  in  v.  7  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  In  this  sense  it  is  entirely  inapplicable  to  the 
Christian.  Paul  says  expressly,  tlie  believer  is  in  this  sense  no 
longer  the  servant  (Gr.  slave)  of  sin,  ])ut  the  servant  of  right- 
eousness. The  plirase  in  question,  however,  may  also  mean, 
that  one  is  subject  to  a  power  which,  of  himself,  he  cannot 
resist:  against  which  lie  may  and  docs  struggle,  and  from  which 
he  desires  to  be  free:  but  which,  notwithstanding  all  his  cflbrts, 
still  asserts  its  authority.  This  is  a  state  of  bondage.  It  is  in 
this  sense  that  Paul  says  he  was  sold  under  sin.  This  appears 
clearly  from  the  following  verses,  which  are  cxplanatoiy  of 
this  clause. 

(15)  For  that  ivhich  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.  This  is  an 
explanation  and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  declaration.   '  I  am 


286  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

sold  under  sin,  for  that  which  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.'  The 
original  word  rendered  I  allow,  properly  signifies  /A'woi^;,  and 
as  it  is  used  in  different  senses  in  the  scriptures,  its  meaning  in 
this  case  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  Retaining  its  ordinary  sense,  the 
word  may  be  used  here  popularly,  as  in  the  common  phrase, '  I 
know  not  what  I  do,'  expressive  of  the  absence  of  a  calm  and  de- 
liberate purpose,  and  of  the  violence  of  the  impulse  under  which 
one  acts.*  Or  the  meaning  may  be  that  what  is  done,  is  done 
thoughtlessly.  As,  however,  the  word  often  expresses  the  idea 
of  approbation,  the  interpretation  best  suited  to  the  context  is, 
'What  I  do,  that  I  approve  not;'  compare  Ps.  1:  6,  "The 
Lord  knoweth  (i.  e.  approves)  the  way  of  the  righteous;"  Ps. 
3G:  10.  1  Cor.  8:  3,  &c. 

For  ivhat  I  ivould,  that  do  I  not;  but  what  I  hate,  that 
do  I.     This  is  a  further  description  of  this  state  of  bondage. 
As  the  expressions  what  I  ivoiild  and  luhat  I  hate  are  in  anti- 
thesis, the  former  must  mean  what  I  love  or  delight  in.     This 
use  of  the  Greek  word  (Se'Xw)   is  accommodated  to  the  corres- 
ponding Hebrew  term,  and  occurs  several  times  in  the  New 
Testament.     Matt.  27:  43,  "Let  him  deliver  him,  if  he  will 
have  him  [z\  ^iT^si  a;^Tov),  i.  e.  if  he  delights  in  him;"t  Matt.  9:  13. 
12:  7.  Ileb.  10:  5,  8,  and  Ps.  21 :  9.  39:  7,  in  the  Septuagint.    The 
word  ivill,  therefore,  does  not  express  so  much  a  mere  determina- 
tion of  the  mind,  as  a  state  of  the  feelings  and  judgment.    '  What 
I  love  and  apj)rove,  that  I  omit;  what  I  hate  and  disapprove, 
that  I  do.'     This  may  not  be  metaphysical,  tliough  it  is  perfect 
cori-cct  language.     It  is  the  language  of  common  life,  which, 
as  it  proceeds  from  the  common  consciousness  of  men,  is  often 
a  better  indication  of  what  that  consciousness  teaches,  than  the 
language  of  the  schools.     We  do  not  find  the  ])ible  makin<>-  that 
broad  distinction  between  the  various  faculties  of  the  soul,  as 
though  they  were  so  many  different  agents,  which  is  so  com- 
mon with  tlie  ])hilosophers.     The  language  of  the  apostle,  in 
this  passage,  expresses  a  fact  of  consciousness,  with  which  every 
Christian  is  familiar.     Whether  the  conflict  here  described  is 
that  which,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  exists  in  every  man,  be- 

*   Inscius  et  invitus  facio,  quae  fucio. — Koppe. 
Non  cum  plcno  mentis  proposito,  «&o. — Morus. 

f  (Jompare  Ps.  22:  !»,  13  ]'Dn  'P..  hXX.  oVi  SaXfi  aJro'v.     "  SoeiiiL,'  he  de- 
liglitcd  ill  him." 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  287 

tween  tlie  natural  autlioritative  sense  of  riglit  and  wrong,  and 
his  corrupt  inclinations;  or  whether  it  is  peculiar  to  the  Chris- 
tian, must  be  decided  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  whole 
description,  and  from  the  connexion  of  this  passage  with  the 
preceding  and  succeeding  portions  of  the  apostle's  discourse. 
It  is  enough  to  remark  here,  that  every  Christian  can  adopt  the 
language  of  this  verse.  Pride,  coldness,  slothfulness  and  other 
feelings  which  he  disapproves  and  hates,  are,  day  by  day,  re- 
asserting their  power  over  him.  He  struggles  against  their 
influence,  groans  beneath  their  bondage,  longs  to  be  filled  with 
meekness,  humility,  and  all  other  fruits  of  the  love  of  God,  but 
finds  he  can  neither  of  himself,  nor  by  the  aid  of  the  law,  effect 
his  freedom  from  what  he  hates,  or  the  full  performance  of  what 
he  desires  and  approves.  Every  evening  witnesses  his  penitent 
confession  of  his  degrading  bondage,  his  sense  of  utter  help- 
lessness, and  his  longing  desire  for  aid  from  above.  He  is  a  slave 
looking  and  longing  for  liberty. 

Two  consequences  flow  from  this  representation  of  the  ex- 
perience of  the  Christian.  First,  the  fault  is  felt  and  acknow- 
ledged to  be  his  own;  the  law  is  not  to  be  blamed,  v.  16. 
Second,  this  state  of  feeling  is  consistent  with  his  being  a  Chris- 
tian, V.  17. 

(16)  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would  not,  I  consent  unto 
the  law  that  it  is  good.  Paul  here  asserts  that  his  acting 
contrary  to  the  law,  was  no  evidence  that  he  thought  the  law 
evil;  for  what  he  did,  he  disapproved.  But  to  disapprove  and 
condemn  what  the  law  forbids,  is  to  assent  to  the  excellence  of 
I  lie  law.  There  is  a  constant  feeling  of  self-disapprobation,  and  a 
sense  of  the  excellence  of  the  law  in  the  Christian's  mind.  He 
is,  therefore,  never  disposed  to  blame  the  extent  or  severity  of 
the  law,  but  admits  the  fault  to  be  in  himself.  /  consent  to, 
literally,  I  speak  with,  agree  with,  concede  to. 

(17)  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me.  Now  then,  that  is,  under  these  circumstances, 
or,  this  being  the  case.  Or  the  meaning  may  be  hut  noiv,  i.  e. 
since  I  became  a  Christian.  The  former  explanation  is  to  be 
preferred  on  account  of  the  connexion  of  this  verse  with  v.  15, 
from  which  this  passage  is  an  inference,  '  If  the  case  be  so, 
that  I  am  sold  under  sin  and  am  its  unwilling  slave;  if  I  do 
what  I  disapprove,  and  fail  to  accomplish  what  I  love;  it  is 


288  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

clear  that  it  is  not  properly  and  fully  I  that  do  it,  my  real  self;* 
my  hetter  feelings  or  renovated  nature  is  opposed  to  what  the 
law  forhids.'  This  is  not  said  as  an  exculpation,  but  to  exhibit 
the  extent  and  power  of  indwelling  sin,  which  it  is  beyond  our 
own  power,  and  bc}on(l  the  power  of  the  law  to  eradicate  or 
efTcctually  control.  This  feeling  of  helplessness  is  not  only 
consistent  with  a  sense  and  acknowledgement  of  accountability, 
but  is  always  found  united  with  genuine  self-condemnation  and 
penitence.  There  are,  in  general,  few  stronger  indications  of 
ignorance  of  the  power  and  evil  of  sin,  than  the  confident  as- 
sertion of  our  ability  to  resist  and  subdue  it.  Paul  groaned 
beneath  its  bondage,  as  if  held  in  the  loathsome  embrace  of  a 
"  body  of  death."  The  apostle's  object,  therefore,  is  not  to 
apologize  for  sin,  but  to  show  that  the  experience  detailed  in 
V.  15,  is  consistent  with  his  being  a  Christian.  'If  it  is  true 
that  I  really  approve  and  love  the  law,  and  desire  to  be  con- 
formed to  it,  I  am  no  longer  the  willing  slave  of  sin;  to  the 
depth  and  power  of  the  original  evil  is  to  be  attributed  the  fact 
that  I  am  not  entirely  delivered  from  its  influence.'  This  is 
obviously  connected  with  the  main  object  of  the  whole  passage. 
For  if  sin  remains  and  exerts  its  power,  notwithstanding  our 
disapprolwtion,  and  in  despite  of  all  our  efforts,  it  is  clear  that 
we  must  look  for  deliverance  to  something  out  of  ourselves, 
and  that  the  mere  preceptive  power  of  the  law  cannot  remove 
the  evil. 

(18,  1!),  20)  These  verses  contain  an  amplification  and  con- 
firmation of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding  verses.  They  re- 
assert the  existence,  and  explain  the  nature  of  tlie  inward 
struggle  of  which  the  apostle  had  been  speaking.  '  I  am  unable 
to  come  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  not  because  they 
arc  unreasonable,  but  because  I  am  corrupt;  there  is  no  good  in 
me.  I  can  approve  and  delight  in  llic  exhibitions  of  holiness 
made  by  the  law,  but  full  conformity  to  its  demands  is  more 
than  1  can  attain.  It  is  not  I,  therefore,  my  real  and  lasting 
self,  but  tills  intrusive  tyrant  dwelling  within  me,  that  disobeys 
the  law.'  This  strong  and  expressive  language,  though  sus- 
ceptible of  a  literal  interpretation,  which  would  make  it  teach 


*    Ego  tiuuloni  in  ulroquc,  scil  magis  ego  in- eo,  quotl  nji])roliabani,  quain  in  co 
qviod  in  uie  iinprobabum. — Ai'gustine,  Confess.  Lib.  Vlll.  ch.  5. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  289 

not  only  error  but  nonsense,  is  still  perfectly  perspicuous  and 
correct,  because  accurately  descriptive  of  the  common  feelings 
of  men.  Paul  frequently  employs  similar  modes  of  expression. 
When  speaking  of  his  apostolic  labours,  he  says,  "  Yet  not  I, 
but  the  grace  of  God,  which  was  with  me,"  1  Cor.  15:  10. 
And  in  Gal.  2:  20,  he  says,  "  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me."  As  no  one  supposes  that  the  labours  and  life  here 
spoken  of  were  not  the  labours  and  life  of  the  apostle,  or  that 
they  did  not  constitute  and  express  his  moral  character;  so  no 
Christian  supposes  that  the  greatness  and  power  of  his  sin  frees 
him  from  its  responsibility,  even  when  he  expresses  his  helpless 
misery  by  saying,  with  the  apostle,  "  It  is  not  I,  but  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me." 

(18)  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  there 
dwelleth  no  good  thing,  &c.     Paul  is  here  explaining  how  it 
is  that  there  is  such  a  contradiction  between  his  better  princi- 
ples and  his  conduct,  as  just  described.     The  reason  is,  that  in 
himself,  he  was  entirely  depraved,  "  In  me,  that  is,  in  my 
flesh,  there  dwelleth  no  good  thing."     As  Paul  is  here  speaking 
of  himself,  he  limits  the  declaration  that  there  was  no  good  in 
him.     In  its  full  sense,  as  he  was  a  renewed  man,  this  could  not 
be  true;  he  therefore  adds,  "  in  my  flesh."     Agreeably  to  the 
explanation  given  above,  v.  14,  these  words  evidently  mean, 
'  in  my  nature  considered  apart  from  divine  influence,'  i.  e.  '  in 
me  viewed  independently  of  the  efiects  produced  by  the  Spirit 
of  God.'     This  is  Paul's  constant  use  of  the  word  flesh.     As 
he  ascribes  all  excellence  in  man  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  men, 
when  destitute  of  that  Spirit,  there  is  "  no  good  thing."     To 
be  "  in  the  flesh,"  is  to  be  unrenewed,  and  under  the  govern- 
ment of  our  own  depraved  nature;  to  be  "in  the  Spirit,"  is  to 
be  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  ch.  8:  8,  9.     So  too, 
in  scriptural  language,  a  natural  man  is  a  depraved  man;  and  a 
spiritual  vcizw  is  one  that  is  renewed;  1  Cor.  2:  14,  15.    It  need 
hardly  be  remarked  that  in  the  flesh  cannot  here  mean  in  the 
body.     Paul  does  not  mean  to  say  that  in  his  body  there  was 
no  good  thing,  as  though  the  body  were  the  seat  of  sin  in  man, 
and  that  exclusively.     He  constantly  uses  the  phrase  works  of 
the  flesh,  in  reference  to  sins  which  have  no  connexion  with 
the  body,  as  envy,  pride,  seditions,  heresies,  &c.,  Gal.  5:19,  20, 
For  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  perform  that  which 

37 


290  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

is  good  I  find  not*  To  ivill  indeed.  As  loill  is  here  op- 
posed io  perfoj^mance,  it  must  have  a  somewhat  different  sense 
from  that  which  it  has  in  v.  15,  Avhere  it  is  opposed  to  the 
word  to  hate.  There  it  means  to  approve  or  love;  here  it 
means  to  purpose  or  desire.  '  I  have  the  purpose  or  desire  to 
obey  the  law,  but  the  performance  I  find  not.'  I  find  not,  i.  e. 
I  do  not  find  to  be  present;  I  cannot  attain. 

(19)  For  the  good  that  I  ivould,  I  do  not;  but  the  evil 
that  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  This  is  a  repetition,  nearly  in  the 
same  words,  of  v.  15.  Paul  re-asserts  that  he  was  unable  to  act  up 
to  his  purpose  and  desires.  For  example,  he  doubtless  desired 
to  love  God  with  all  his  heart  and  at  all  times;  but  how  con- 
stantly was  his  love  colder,  and  less  operative  than  the  law 
demands.  This  verse  is,  therefore,  but  an  amplification  of  the 
last  clause  of  v.  IS.  /  loould  (SsXw),  means  either  /  approve 
or  love,  as  in  v.  15;  or  I  purpose,  as  in  v.  18.  The  numerous 
passagest  quoted  by  commentators  in  illustration  of  this  and 
the  preceding  verses,  though  they  may  serve  to  throw  light 
upon  the  language,  are  expressive  of  feelings  very  different  from 
those  of  the  apostle.     When  an  impenitent  man  says  '  He  is 

•  The  words  oup(  Su^iffxw  are  omitted  in  MSS.  A.  C.  47,  67,  in  the  Coptic  ver- 
sion, and  by  some  few  of  the  fathers.  These  authorities  read  to  6s  xaTE^ya^sffSa* 
TO  xaXov,  ou.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Mill,  Griesbach,  and  Lachmann.  The 
common  text  is  retained  by  most  editors  on  the  authority  of  tlie  great  majority  of 
MSy.  versions  and  fathers. 

f  The  following  are  a  few  examples  of  this  kind  selected  from  the  multitude 
collected  by  Grotius  and  Wetstein. 

Quid  est  hoc,  LuciU,  quod  nos  alio  tendentes  alio  traliit,  ct  eo,  unde  rccedere  cu- 
pimus,  repellit  ?  Quid  colluctatur  cum  aiiimo  nostro,  noc  pcrmittit  nobis  quidquam 
semel  velle  T  Fluctuamus  inter  varia  concilia,  nihil  Ubere  volumus,  niliil  absolute, 
nihil  semper. — Senkca,  Ep.  25. 

Sed  trahit  invitam  nova  vis,  aliudque  cupido,  mens  aliud  suadet.  Video  meliora 
proboque,  deteriora  sequor. — Ovid,  Metam.  VII.  1 9. 

Vos  testor,  omncs  coclites,  hoc  quod  volo,  me  nolle. — Se:veca,  Hippol.  V.  604. 

'Eirsi  ya.^  6  a}j.a^Tu\iuv  ou  SiXsi  MjU-a^Tocvsiv,  aXXa  xaTo^&ojffai,  (SyjXov  oVi, 
0  fJiHV  SeXsi,  ou  TToisr,  xai  o  (xrj  SiXsi,  •xoisT. — Aurian's  Epict.  2.  26.  "  Since 
the  sinner  does  not  wish  to  en-,  but  to  act  correctly,  it  is  plain  that  what  he  wdlls  he 
does  not,  and  what  he  wills  not  he  does." 

MavSavu  (xbv,  eia  S^av  /xeXXw  xaxa, 

0u|*o5  8s  xgsitftfuv  Twv  tfjiwv  ^ouXsu/JLotTWv. — EuuiriDES,  Medea,  V.  1077. 

"  I  know  indeed  that  what  I  am  about  to  do  is  evil ; 

But  passion  is  too  strong  for  my  purposes." 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  291 

sorry  for  his  sins,'  he  may  express  the  real  state  of  his  feelings; 
and  yet  the  import  of  this  language  is  very  different  from  what 
it  is  in  the  mouth  of  a  man  truly  contrite.  The  word  sorrow 
expresses  a  multitude  of  very  different  feelings.  Thus,  also, 
when  wicked  men  say  they  approve  the  good  while  they  pursue 
the  wrong,  their  approl)ation  is  something  very  different  from 
Paul's  approbation  of  the  law  of  God.  And  when  Seneca  calls 
the  gods  to  witness,  '  that  what  he  wills,  he  does  not  will,'  he 
too  expresses  something  far  short  of  what  the  language  of  the 
apostle  conveys.  This  must  be  so,  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as 
experimental  or  evangelical  religion;  that  is,  if  there  is  any 
difference  between  the  sorrow  for  sin  and  desire  of  good  in 
the  mind  of  a  true  Christian,  and  in  the  unrenewed  and  willing 
votaries  of  sin  in  whom  conscience  is  not  entirely  obliterated. 

(20)  Now  if  I  do  that  I  luould  not,  it  is  no  inore  I  that 
do  it,  but  sin  that  divelleth  in  me.  The  same  conclusion 
from  the  same  premises  as  in  v.  17.  'The  things  which  I  do, 
when  contrary  to  the  characteristic  desires  and  purposes  of  my 
heart,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  acts  of  a  slave.  They  are 
indeed  my  own  acts,  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full  and 
joyful  purpose  of  the  heart,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair 
criterion  of  character.' 

(21)  I  find  then  a  law,  that  luhen  I  loould  do  good,  evil  is 
present  with  me.  This  verse  has  been  subjected  to  a  greater 
variety  of  interpretations  than  any  other  in  the  chapter,  or 
perhaps  in  the  whole  epistle.  The  construction  in  the  original 
is  doubtful;  and  besides  this  difficulty,  there  is  no  little  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  word  laiv  is  to  be  here 
taken.  The  question  is,  whether  Paul  means  the  law  of  God, 
of  which  he  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  chapter,  or 
wliether  he  uses  the  word  in  a  new  sense,  for  a  rule,  course,  or 
law  of  action.  Our  translators  have  assumed  the  latter.  If  the 
former  sensa  of  the  word  be  preferred,  the  passage  may  be  thus  in- 
terpreted. '  I  find,  therefore,  tiaat  to  me  wishing  to  do  good,  evil 
(the  law^  as  the  cause  of  evil)  is  present  with  me.'  See  Koppe. 
This  is  very  unnatural.  Or  thus,  '  I  find,  therefore,  that  to  me 
wishing  to  act  according  to  the  law,  i.  e.  to  do  good,  evil  is 
present  with  me.'*     The  considerations,  however,  in  favour  of 

*  KxAPp's  Prolusio  in  locum,  Rom.  7:  21,  in  his  Scripta  Varii  Argumcnti.  The 
several  interpretations  of  the  passage  arc  given  and  discussed  by  this  writer. 


292  ROMANS  7:  14— 25. 

the  second  explanation  of  the  word  law  appear  to  be  decisive. 
1.  The  other  interpretation  does  not  afford  a  sense  suited  to  the 
context,  as  appears  from  Paul's  own  explanation  of  his  meaning 
in  the  following  verses.  '  I  find,'  he  says,  '  this  law,  that  while 
wishing  to  do  good,  I  do  evil,  v.  21;  that  is,  I  find  that  while 
I  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man,  there  is 
another  law  in  my  members  which  causes  me  to  sin,'  vs.  22, 
23.  Here  it  is  evident,  that  the  apostle  means  to  explain  what 
he  intended  by  saying  in  v.  21,  that  he  found  or  experienced  a 
law  which  caused  him  to  go  counter  to  his  better  judgment  and 
desires.  2.  Having  used  the  word  law  by  itself  for  the  divine . 
law  throughout  the  chapter,  he,  for  the  first  time,  in  v.  22,  calls 
it  "  the  law  of  God,"  to  mark  the  distinction  between  the  law 
intended  in  v.  21,  and  that  intended  in  v.  22.  3,  This  sense  of 
the  word  is  not  unusual,  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  immediately 
succeeding  verses. 

The  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  '  I  find,  therefore,  this  law,  that 
to  me  wishing  to  do  good,  evil  is  present.'*  This  passage  thus 
expresses  the  result  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived.  There 
was  this  inward  conflict  in  his  mind  between  grood  and  evil 
which  the  law  could  not  terminate.  He  found,  that  wliile 
wishing  to  do  good,  he  was  still  subject  to  evil,  and  from  this 
subjection  nothing  but  the  grace  of  God  could  deliver  him. 
This  is  more  fully  explained  in  the  following  verses. 

(22)  For  I  delight  in  ihe  law  of  God  after  tlic  imoard 
man,  &c.  In  the  preceding  verse  Paul  had  said,  "  I  would  do 
good;"  the  same  desire  after  conformity  to  the  requisitions  of 
God  is  here  expressed  with  more  distinctness.  /  delight  in  the 
law  is  a  stronger  expression  than  I  consent  to  it,  v.  16.  As  /, 
in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  includes,  as  it  were,  two  persons, 
the  new  and  the  old  man,  the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  it  is  necessary 
to  limit  the  proposition  whether  he  says,  "  In  me  there  is  no 
good  thing,"  or  "  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God."  The  former  was 
true  only  as  to  his  flesh;  the  latter  only  as  to  his  inioard  man. 

*  There  is  here  assumed  a  trajectiou  of  the  particle  on,  which  should  stand  be- 
fore the  second,  instead  of  before  the  tliird  clause  of  the  sentence.  Beza  thus 
renders  the  verse,  Coniperio  igitur  volenti  niihi  facere  bonum  banc  legem  esse  im- 
positam,  quod  mihi  malum  adjaceat.  Calvin's  explanation  is,  Fideles  dum  ad 
bonum  nituntur,  quandam  in  sc  tj'riuinicam  legem  reperirc,  quia  eorum  mcdullis 
et  ossibus  inlixa  est  vitiosilus  iegi  Dei  adversa  et  rcpugnuns. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  293 

That  this  phrase  is  here  expressive  of  real   complacency  and 
delisht  in  the  divine  excellence  as  exhibited  in  the  law,  seems 
evident  from  the  following  reasons.     1.  Because  the  delight  is 
restricted  to  the  inward  man,  and   not  spoken  of  the  soul 
generally.     As  the  term  inward  man  meant  at  first  the  soul 
in  opposition  to  the  body,  and  as  the  former  is  superior  to  the 
latter,  it  naturally  became  expressive  of  excellence,  and  when 
opposed  to  something  in  the  soul,  indicates  its  renewed   or 
better  feelings.  Compare  Eph.  3:16,"  Strengthened  with  might, 
by  his  Spirit,  in  the  inner  man;"  i.  e.  their  holy  afiections  being 
confirmed.     1  Peter  3:4,"  Hidden  man  of  the  heart."     2  Cor. 
4 :  10,  "  The  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day."     In  all  these 
and  similar  passages,  the  phrase  includes  the  idea  of  excellence. 
When  opposed  to  the  body,  it  is  the  soul;  but  when  opposed 
to  something  in  the  mind,  as  in  this  passage  to  the  "  law  in  the 
members,"  it  means  the  better  feelings  or  principles.     2.  When 
the  bible  makes  this  opposition  between  a  good  and  evil  principle 
in  man,  it  uniformly  attributes  the  former  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
especially  when  any  one  is  spoken  of  as  hating  evil  and  rejoicing 
in  God.     3.  A  comparison  of  the  terms  "  inward  man,"  "  law  of 
the  mind,"  "  the  new  man,'"  "  the  Spirit,"  as  opposed  to  "the 
law  in  the  members,"  "  the  old  man,"  "the  flesh,"  shows  that  the 
former  are  all  employed  to  designate  holy  feelings,  or  the  soul 
considered  as  renewed;  and  the  latter  the   reverse.     This  is 
peculiarly  obvious  from  what  is  said  in  v.  25,  where  "  the  flesh" 
is  opposed  to  "  the  law  of  the  mind."     4.  What  is  here  said  of 
the  "  inward  man"  and  "  the  law  in  the  members,"  is  elsewhere 
said  of  "  the  Spirit"  and  "  the  flesh."     The  conflict  which  is 
described  here,  is  described  also  in  ch.  8:  13.  Gal.  5:  17.  Col. 
3:  9,  10;  precisely  the  same  things  are  predicated  of  the  evil 
principle  in  all  these  cases,  especially  in  the  passage  in  Gala- 
tians.     If,  therefore,  the  contest  between  "the  flesh  and  Spirit" 
is  peculiar  to  the  renewed  man,  so  is  also  that  of  which  Paul 
speaks  in  this  chapter. 

(23)  But  I  see  another  taw  in  my  memliers  ivarring 
against  tJie  law  of  my  rnind,  &c.  Another,  i.  e.  other  than 
the  "  inward  man"  or  "  law  of  the  mind."  With  the  one  he 
delighted  in  the  law  of  God,  with  the  other  he  was  opposed  to 
it.  These  principles  war  against  each  other;  exactly  as  in  Gal. 
5:17,  the  flesh  and  spirit  are  represented  as  being  contrary  the 


294  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

one  to  ihe  otlier,  so  that  we  cannot  do  the  tilings  tliat  we  would. 
This  law  is  said  to  be  in.  my  members,  i.  c.  in  me;  compare  ch. 
6:  13,  19,  As  he  had  spoken  of  the  good  principle  as  "the 
inward  man,"  it  was  natural  to  speak  of  the  evil  principle  as 
being  outward.  In  viy  members,  therefore,  is  equivalent  to 
"in  my  flesh,"  in  my  unsanctified  nature.  What  in  vs.  17,  20 
is  ascribed  to  '  indwelling  sin,'  is  here  attributed  to  '  the  law  in 
the  members.'  The  latter  is,  therefore,  but  a  figurative  expres- 
sion of  the  same  idea.  This  evil  is  called  a  law  from  its  con- 
trolling influence;  it  regulates  the  conduct  as  though  it  had  a 
right  to  do  so.  The  law  of  the  mind  is  evidently  but  another 
expression  for  the  "  inward  man."  This  form  of  expression 
was  adopted  from  its  natural  opposition  to  the  plirase  "  law  in 
the  members."'' 

Brins;ing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in 
my  members.  The  law  in  my  members  brings  me  into  cap- 
tivity to  the  law  of  sin;  that  is,  to  itself.  The  form  of  expres- 
sion is  rather  unusual,  although  the  sense  appears  sufficiently 
plain  from  the  context.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  ade- 
quate reason  for  making  a  distinction  between  "the  law  in  the 
members"  and  "  the  law  of  sin;"  the  latter  designation  is  rather 
explanatory  of  tlie  former.  Indwelling  sin  wars  against  the 
renewed  principle,  and  brings  the  soul  into  captivity  to  itself. 
This,  tlicrefore,  is  but  another  form  of  expressing  the  idea  that  he 
was  sold  under  sin,  was  its  unwilling  and  unhappy  captive,  con- 
stantly resisting  its  power  and  longing  for  deliverance  from  its 
tyranny.     Hence  the  exclamation, 

(24)  O  ivretched  man  tJiat  I  am  !  JJlio  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death.  The  expression  body  of  this 
death  has  been  very  variously  explained.  It  may  be  equiva- 
lent 1()  this  body  of  death,  by  a  very  common  Hebraism,  ac- 
cording to  Avliich  the  pronoun,  which  j^roperly  belongs  to  the 
governing  word,  is  attached  to  tlie  word  governed;  as  idols  of 
/lis  silrcr,  nfom/tain  of  his  holiness,  for  his  idols  of  silver, 

*  Interior  hdino  iioii  aiiiiiia  simplicitor  difitur,  srd  spirituaiis  ejus  ]i:irs,  quae  a 
Deo  rcgeneraUi  est :  Jfcmbroi-iim  vocalmluiii  rcsiduain  alteram  partem  sijnuficat. 
Nam  ut  anima  est  pars  exeellentior  hominis,  corpus  inferior  ;  ita  spiritus  su]ierior 
est  carne.  Hac  eru:o  rationc,  quia  spiritus  locum  aniniae  tenet  in  homine  ;  caro 
autem,  id  est  corrupta  et  vitiata  -anima,  corporis;  ille  intcrioris  hominis,  hacc  mem- 
brorum  nomen  obtinct. — Calvik. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  295 

&c.  "This  body  of  death'^  may  then  mean,  this  body  which 
is  destined  or  obnoxious  to  death,  i.  e,  this  mortal  body.  But 
it  is  clearly  foreign  from  the  spirit  of  this  passage  to  consider 
the  apostle  as  here  wishing  for  deliverance  from  the  body.  He 
had  been  speaking  of  the  burden  of  sin,  and  it  is  from  this 
burden  that  he  longs  to  be  delivered.  Body  of  death  is,  there- 
fore, better  understood  as  '  body  which  causes  death;'  and  body 
may  then  be  taken  for  jicsh,  i.  e.  corrupt  nature,  which,  how- 
ever, is  contrary  to  usage;  or  it  may  be  taken  metaphorically  for 
sin  considered  as  a  body.  This  is  the  more  natural,  as  Paul  had 
just  spoken  of  "  members"  and  of  sin  as  something  "  outward," 
in  contrast  to  the  "  inward  man."  The  meaning  then  is  '  Who 
will  deliver  me  from  this  body,  i.  e.  mass  of  death,  this  weight 
which  tends  to  death.'  This  strong  expression  of  the  hateful- 
ness  of  sin,  and  of  earnest  desire  to  be  delivered  from  it,  seems 
to  be  clearly  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a  renewed  mind. 

(25)  The  burden  of  sin  being  the  great  evil  under  which  the 
apostle  and  all  other  believers  labour,  from  which  no  efficacy  of 
the  law,  and  no  efforts  of  their  own  can  deliver  them,  their  case 
would  be  entirely  hopeless  but  for  help  from  on  high.  "  Sin 
shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,"  is  the  language  of  the  grace 
of  God  in  the  gospel.  The  conflict  which  the  believer  sustains 
is  not  to  result  in  the  victory  of  sin,  but  in  the  triumph  of  grace. 
In  view  of  this  certain  and  glorious  result,  Paul  exclaims,  / 
thank  God  through  Jesns  Christ  our  Lord.  This  is  evi- 
dently the  expression  of  a  strong  and  sudden  emotion  of  grati- 
tude. As,  however,  his  object  is  to  illustrate  the  operation  of 
the  law,  it  would  be  foreign  to  his  purpose  to  expatiate  on  a  de- 
liverance effected  by  a  different  power;  he,  therefore,  does  not 
follow  up  the  idea  suggested  by  this  exclamation,  but  immedi- 
ately returns  to  the  point  in  hand. 

So  then,  with  the  7nind,  I  myself  serve  the  laiv  of  God, 
but  loith  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin.  Mind  and  flesh  are  here 
opposed.  As  the  latter,  according  to  the  constant  usage  of  the 
apostle,  signifies  that  which  is  corrupt  in  man,  his  unsanctificd 
nature;  the  former  must  mean  here,  as  in  v.  23,  that  nature  as 
renewed.  In  every  believer,  and  in  no  one  else,  there  are  these 
two  principles,  grace  and  sin,  the  flesh  and  spirit,  the  law  in  the 
members  and  the  law  in  the  mind;  these  are  contrary  the  one  to 
the  other.     '/  myself, '  says  the  apostle,  or  '  1  one  and  the  same 


296  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

man,  feel  both  of  those  principles  within  me.  With  the  one, 
I  serve  the  law  of  God;  with  the  other,  the  law  of  sin,  that  is, 
sin  itself,  which,  as  a  law  in  my  members,  essays  to  control  my 
conduct.'  This,  in  few  words,  is  the  sum  of  what  the  apostle 
has  said  from  v.  14.  Such  is  the  state  in  which  the  law  leaves 
the  believer;  such  the  effect  of  the  mere  objective  and  preceptive 
presentation  of  truth.  The  law  excites  in  the  unrenewed  mind 
opposition  and  hatred;  in  the  pious  mind  complacency  and  de- 
light; but  in  neitiier  case  can  it  break  the  power  of  sin,  or 
introduce  the  soul  into  the  true  liberty  of  the  children  of  God. 


Having  gone  through  the  exposition  of  this  passage,  it  is  time 
to  pause  and  ask.  Of  whom  has  Paul  been  speaking,  of  a  re- 
newed or  unrenewed  man  ?  Few  questions  of  this  kind  have 
been  more  frequently  canvassed,  or  more  intimately  associated 
with  the  doctrinal  views  of  different  classes  of  theologians. 
The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  sections  of  the  doctrinal 
history  of  the  church.  A  brief  outline  of  this  history  may  be 
found  in  the  Dissertation  of  Knapp  above  referred  to,  and  some- 
what more  extended  in  the  commentary  of  Tholuck.  It  appears 
that  during  the  first  three  centuries,  the  fathers  were  generally 
agreed  in  considering  the  passage  as  descriptive  of  the  experience 
of  one  yet  under  the  law.  Even  Augustine  at  first  concurred  in 
the  correctness  of  this  view.  But  as  a  deeper  insight  into  his 
own  heart,  and  a  more  thorough  investigation  of  the  scriptures, 
led  to  the  modification  of  his  opinions  on  so  many  other  points, 
they  produced  a  change  on  this  subject  also.  This  general  altera- 
tion of  his  doctrinal  views  cannot  be  attributed  to  his  controversy 
with  Pelagius,  because  it  took  place  long  before  that  controversy 
commenced.  It  is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  religious  experience, 
and  his  study  of  the  word  of  God. 

The  writers  of  the  middle  ages,  in  general,  agreed  with  the 
later  views  of  Augustine  on  this  as  on  other  subjects.  At  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  the  oiiginal  diversity  of  opinion  on 
this  point,  and  on  all  others  connected  with  it,  soon  became 
manifested.  Erasmus,  Socinus,  and  others,  revived  the  opinion 
of  the  Greek  fathers;  while  Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon,  Beza, 
&.C.  adhered  to  the  opposite  interpretation.  At  a  later  period, 
when  the  controversy  with  the  Remonstrants  occurred,  it  com- 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  297 

menced  with  a  discussion  of  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter. 
The  first  writings  of  Arminius,  in  which  he  broached  his  pecu- 
liar opinions,  were  lectures  on  this  passage.  All  his  associates 
and  successors,  as  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Limborch,  &c.,  adopted 
the  same  view  of  the  subject.  As  a  general  rule,  Arminian 
writers  have  been  found  on  one  side  of  this  question,  and  Cal- 
vinistic  authors  on  the  other.  This  is  indeed  the  natural  result 
of  their  diflerent  views  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  natural 
state  of  man.  Most  of  the  former  class,  going  much  farther  than 
Arminius  himself  ever  went,  either  denying  that  the  corruption 
consequent  on  the  fall  is  such  as  to  destroy  the  power  of  men 
to  conform  themselves  to  the  law  of  God,  or  maintaining  that 
this  power,  if  lost,  is  restored  by  those  operations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  are  common  to  all,  found  no  difficulty  in  con- 
sidering the  expressions,  "  I  consent  to"  and  "  delight  in  the 
law  of  God  after  the  inward  man,"  as  the  language  of  a  person 
yet  in  his  natural  state.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  held  the 
doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  of  the  consequent  inability  of 
sinners,  and  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of  ''  common  grace," 
could  not  reconcile  with  these  opinions  the  strong  language 
here  used  by  the  apostle. 

Although  this  has  been  the  general  course  of  opinion  on  this 
subject,  some  of  the  most  evangelical  men,  especially  on  the 
continent  of  Europe,  have  agreed  with  Erasmus  in  this  view  of 
this  passage.  This  was  the  case  with  Francke,  Arnold,  Bengel, 
&.C.,  of  a  previous  age;  and  with  Knapp,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  &c., 
of  our  own  day;  not  to  mention  the  distinguished  writers  of 
England  and  our  own  country,*  who  have  adopted  the  same 
view.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  opinion,  which 
implies  the  denial  or  disregard  of  any  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  evangelical  religion.  Still,  that  the  view  of  the  passage 
which  so  long  prevailed  in  the  church,  and  which  has  been 
generally  adopted  by  evangelical  men,  is  the  correct  one,  seems 
evident  from  the  following  considerations. 

I.  The  onus  probandi  is  certainly  on  the  other  side.  When 
the  apostle  uses  not  only  the  first  person,  but  the  present  tense, 
and  says,  "  I  consent  to  the  law  that  it  is  good,"  "  I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God,"  "  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 

*  See  particularly  Pkof.  Stlaiit's  Commentaiy  and  Excursus  on  this  chapter. 

38 


298  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

against  the  law  of  my  mind,"  &c.  &c.,  those  who  deny  that  he 
means  himself,  even  though  he  says  /  myself^  or  refuse  to 
acknowledge  that  this  language  expresses  his  feelings  while 
writing,  are  surely  bound  to  let  the  contrary  very  clearly  be 
seen.  Appearances  are  certainly  against  them.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  Paul  uses  this  language,  not  once  or  twice,  but 
uniformly  througli  the  whole  passage,  and  that  too  with  an 
ardour  of  feeling  indicative  of  language  coming  directly  from 
the  heart,  and  expressing  its  most  joyful  or  painful  experience. 
This  is  a  consideration  which  cannot  be  argumentatively  ex- 
hibited, but  it  must  impress  every  attentive  and  susceptible 
reader.  To  suppose  that  the  apostle  is  personating  another, 
either,  as  Grotius*  supposes,  the  Jew  first  before  the  giving  of 
the  law,  and  then  after  it;  or  as  Erasmus  thinks  a  Gentile 
without  the  law,  as  opposed  to  a  Jew  under  it;  or  as  is  more  com- 
monly supposed,  an  ordinary  individual  under  the  influence  of  a 
knowledge  of  the  law;  is  to  suppose  him  to  do  what  he  does  no 
where  else  in  any  of  his  writings,  and  what  is  entirely  foreign 
to  his  whole  spirit  and  manner.  Instead  of  thus  sinking  himself 
in  another,  he  can  hardly  prevent  his  own  individual  feelings 
from  mingling  with,  and  moulding  the  very  statement  of  ob- 
jections to  his  own  reasoning;  see  ch.  3:  3 — 8.  One  great 
difficulty  in  explaining  his  epistles  arises  from  this  very  source. 
It  is  hard  to  tell  at  times  what  is  his  language,  and  what  that  of 
an  objector.  If  any  one  will  examine  the  passages  in  which 
Paul  is  supposed  to  mean  another,  when  he  uses  the  first  person, 
he  will  see  how  far  short  they  come  of  affording  any  parallel  to 
the  case  supposed  in  this  chapter.!  In  many  of  them  he  undoubt- 
edly means  himself,  as  in  1  Cor.  3:  5,  &c.  4:  3,  &c.;  in  others 
the  language  is,  in  one  sense,  expressive  of  the  apostle's  real 
sentiments,  and  is  only  perverted  hy  the  objector,  as  in  1  Cor. 
6:  12;  while  in  others  the  personation  of  another  is  only  for  a 
single  sentence.  Nothing  analogous  to  this  passage  is  to  be 
found  in  all  his  writings,  if  indeed  he  is  not  here  pouring  out 
the  feelings  of  his  own  heart. 

II.  There  is  no  necessity  for  denying  that  Paul  here  speaks 

*  I!-go,  ill  I'wt,  Rciius  Isracliticuni  cum  vixit  ante  legem — in  Aegj'pto  scilicet. 
See  his  comment  on  v.  9. 

f  The  passages  referred  to  by  Kuapji  are  1  Cor.  3:  5,  &c.  4:  3,  &c.  6;  12.  10: 
29,  30.  13:  11,  12.  14:  14,  1.5.  Gal.  2:  18—21. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  29» 

of  himself,  and  describes  the  exercises  of  a  renewed  man.  "There 
is  not  an  expression  from  beginning  to  the  end  of  this  section, 
which  the  holiest  man  may  not  and  must  not  adopt.  This  has 
been  shown  in  the  commentary.  The  strongest  declarations,  as, 
for  example,  "I  am  carnal,  and  sold  under  sin,"  admit,  indeed,  by 
themselves,  of  an  interpretation  inconsistent  with  even  ordinary 
morality;  but,  as  explained  by  the  apostle,  and  limited  by  the 
context,  they  express  nothing  more  than  every  believer  expe- 
riences. What  Christian  does  not  feel,  in  the  very  centre  of 
his  soul,  that  he  is  carnal!  Alas,  how  different  is  he  from  the 
spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect!  How  cheerfully  does  he 
recognise  his  obligation  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  yet 
how  constantly  does  the  tendency  to  self  and  the  world,  the 
law  in  his  members,  war  against  the  purer  and  better  law  of 
his  mind,  and  bring  him  into  subjection  to  sin!  If,  indeed,  it 
were  true,  as  has  been  asserted,  that  the  person  here  described 
^^  succumbs  to  sin  in  every  instance  of  cojitest,''^*  the  de- 
scription would  be  inapplicable  not  to  the  Christian  only,  but 
to  any  other  than  the  most  immoral  of  men.  It  is  rare  indeed, 
even  in  the  natural  conflict  between  reason  and  passion,  or 
conscience  and  corrupt  inclination,  that  the  better  principle 
does  not  succeed,  not  once  merely,  but  often.  There  is,  how- 
ever, nothing  approaching  even  to  the  implication  of  such  a  sen- 
timent in  the  whole  passage.  Paul  merely  asserts  that  the 
believer  is,  and  ever  remains  in  this  life,  imperfectly  sanctified; 
that  sin  continues  to  dwell  within  him;  that  he  never  comes  up 
to  the  full  requisitions  of  the  law,  however  anxiously  he  may 
desire  it.  Often  as  he  subdues  one  spiritual  foe,  another  rises 
in  a  different  form;  so  that  he  cannot  do  the  things  that  he 
would;  that  is,  cannot  be  perfectly  conformed  in  heart  and  life 
to  the  image  of  God. 

It  must  have  been  in  a  moment  of  forgetfulness,  that  such  a 
man  as  Tholuck  could  quote  with  approbation  the  assertion  of 
Dr.  A.  Clarke;  "This  opinion  has  most  pitifully  and  shame- 
fully, not  only  lowered  the  standard  of  Christianity,  but  de- 
stroyed its  influence  and  disgraced  its  character."  What 
lamentable  blindness  to  notorious  facts  does  such  language 
evince!     From  the  days  of  Job  and  David  to  the  present  hour, 

*  PuoF.  Stcart,  p.  558. 


300  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

the  holiest  men  have  heen  the  most  ready  to  acknowledge  and 
deplore  the  existence  and  power  of  indwelling  sin.  With- 
out appealing  to  individual  illustrations  of  the  tiaith  of  this 
remark,  look  at  masses  of  men,  at  Augustinians  and  Pela- 
gians, Calvinists  and  Remonstrants;  in  all  ages  the  strictest 
doctrines  and  the  sternest  morals  have  heen  found  united. 
It  is  not  those  who  have  most  exalted  human  ability,  that 
have  most  advantageously  exhibited  the  fruits  of  this  power. 
It  has  been  rather  those  who,  with  the  lowest  views  of  them- 
selves and  the  highest  of  the  efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God, 
have  been  able  to  adopt  the  language  of  Paul,  "  What  I  would, 
that  do  I  not;"  and  who,  looking  away  from  themselves  to 
him  through  whom  they  can  do  all  things,  have  shown  the 
divine  strength  manifested  in  their  weakness. 

III.  While  there  is  nothing  in  the  sentiments  of  this  passage 
which  a  true  Christian  may  not  adopt,  there  is  much  which 
cannot  be  asserted  by  any  unrenewed  man.  As  far  as  this  point 
is  concerned,  it  depends,  of  course,  on  the  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  the  several  expressions  employed  by  the  apostle. 
1.  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrases  "  inward  man"  and 
"  law  of  the  mind,"  when  opposed  to  "  the  flesh"  and  "  the  law 
in  the  members  ?"  The  sense  of  these  expressions  is  to  be 
determined  by  their  use  in  other  passages,  or  if  they  do  not 
elsewhere  occur,  by  the  meaning  attached  to  those  w'hich  are 
obviously  substituted  for  them.  As  from  the  similarity  of  the 
passages,  it  can  hardly  be  questioned,  that  what  Paul  here  calls 
"the  inward  man"  and  "  law  of  the  mind,"  he,  in  Gal.  5:  17 
and  elsewhere,  calls  "  the  Spirit;"  it  is  plain  that  he  intends,  by 
these  terms,  to  designate  the  soul  considered  as  renewed,  in 
opposition  to  the  "  flesh,"  or  the  soul  considered  as  destitute  of 
divine  influence.  2.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  scriptural 
representation  of  the  wicked,  to  describe  them  as  consenting  to 
the  law  of  God,  as  hating  sin  and  struggling  against  it,  groaning 
under  it  as  a  tyrant's  yoke,  as  delighting  in  the  law  of  God, 
i.  e.  in  holiness;  doing  all  this,  not  as  men,  but  as  men  viewed 
in  a  particular  .aspect,  as  to  the  inward  or  new  man.  This  is 
not  the  scriptural  representation  of  the  natural  man,*  who  docs 

*  The  passages  which  arv  .somotimos  referred  to,  as  justifying  tlie  application  of 
the  language  of  tlie  apostle  to  unrenewed  men,  arc  very  unsatisfactory.  Wlien 
God  says  of  the  wicked,  Is.  58  :  2,  "  Yet  tlicy  seek  me  daily,  and  dehght  to  know 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  301 

not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  cannot  know 
them,  1  Cor.  2:  14.  On  the  contrary,  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God  and  his  law.  They,  therefore,  who  are  in  the  flesh, 
that  is,  who  have  this  carnal  mind,  hate  and  oppose  the  law, 
Rom.  8:  7,  8,  The  expressions  here  used  by  the  apostle,  are 
such  as,  throughout  the  scriptures,  are  used  to  describe  the  exer- 
cises of  the  pious,  "  whose  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord," 
Ps.  1:2.  3.  Not  only  do  these  particular  expressions  show  that 
the  speaker  is  a  true  Christian,  but  the  whole  conflict  here  de- 
scribed is  such  as  is  peculiar  to  the  sincere  believer.  There  is, 
indeed,  in  the  natural  man,  something  very  analogous  to  this, 
when  his  conscience  is  enlightened,  and  his  better  feelings  come 
into  collision  with  the  strong  inclination  to  evil  which  dwells 
in  his  mind.  But  this  struggle  is  very  far  below  that  which 
the  apostle  here  describes.  The  true  nature  of  this  conflict 
seems  to  be  ascertained  beyond  dispute,  by  the  parallel  passage 
in  Gal.  5:  17,  already  i^eferred  to.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  to 
possess  the  Spirit  is,  in  scriptural  language,  a  characteristic 
mark  of  a  true  Christian.  "  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
spirit,  if  so  be  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any  man 
have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,"  Rom.  8:  9. 
Those,  therefore,  who  have  that  Spirit,  are 'Christians.  This  be- 
ing the  case,  it  will  not  be  doulited  that  the  passage  in  Galatians, 
in  which  the  spirit  is  represented  as  warring  against  the  flesh, 
and  the  flesh  against  the  spirit,  is  descriptive  of  the  experience  of 
the  true  believer.  But  the  conflict  there  described  is  identical 
with  that  of  which  the  same  apostle  speaks  in  this  chapter. 
This  is  evident,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  one  of  the  antago- 
nist principles  is,  in  both  cases,  called  flesh,  but  because  the 
description  is  nearly  in  the  same  words.  In  consequence  of  the 
opposition  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  Paul  tells  the  Galatians  they 
cannot  do  the  things  that  they  would;  and  he  says  here  of  himself, 
that  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  between  the  flesh  and  the 
law  of  his  mind,  what  he  would  he  did  not.  The  same  conflict 
and  the  same  bondage  are  described  in  each  case;  if  the  one  be 
descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a  true  Christian,  the  other  must 
be  so  also. 

my  ways,  &c.,"  the  meaning  is,  that  while  they  indulge  in  sin,  they  make  much 
ado  ahout  religion,  aie  very  zealous  for  its  forms  or  doctrines,  &c.;  see  also  Mark 
6:  20.  .Iohn5:  35. 


302  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

IV.  The  context,  or  Ihe  connexion  of  this  passage  with  the 
preceding  and  succeeding  chapters,  is  in  i\\vour  of  the  common 
interpretation.  The  contrary  is,  indeed,  strongly  asserted  by 
those  who  take  the  opposite  view  of  the  passage.  Tholuck 
seems  to  admit  that,  were  it  not  for  the  context,  the  whole  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  might  well  ])e  understood  of  the 
believer;  see  his  remarks  on  v.  14.  And  Prof.  Stuart  says,  "  I 
repeat  the  remark,  that  the  question  is  not,  whether  what  is 
here  said  inight  be  applied  to  Christians;  but  whether,  from 
the  tenor  of  the  context,  it  appears  to  have  been  the  intention 
of  the  writer  that  it  should  be  so  applied.  This  principle  can- 
not fail  to  settle  the  question  concerning  such  an  application," 
p.  558.  It  may  be  proper  to  pause  to  remark,  that  such  state- 
ments involve  a  renunciation  of  the  arguments  derived  from 
the  inapplicability  to  the  real  Christian,  of  what  is  here  said. 
Every  thing  is  here  admitted  to  be  in  itself  inapplicable  to  him, 
did  but  the  context  allow  it  to  be  so  applied.  Yet  every  one  is 
aware  that  no  argument  is  more  frequentl)^  and  strongly  urged 
against  the  common  interpretation,  than  that  the  description 
here  given  is,  in  its  very  nature,  unsuitable  to  Christian  experi- 
ence. On  the  same  page  which  contains  the  passage  just 
quoted,  Prof.  Stuart  says,  "  As,  however,  there  is  no  denying 
the  truth  of  these  and  the  like  declarations,*  and  no  receding 
from  them,  nor  explaining  them  away  as  meaning  less  than 
habitual  victory  over  sin;  so  it  follows  that  when  vs.  14 — 25 
are  applied  to  Christian  experience,  they  are  wrongly  applied. 
The  person  represented  in  these  verses,  succuinbs  to  siji  in 
EVERY  INSTANCE  of  coutest."  This  is  certainly  an  argument 
against  applying  the  passage  in  question  to  the  Christian,  found- 
ed on  the  assumption  that  it  is,  from  its  nature,  entirely  inap- 
plicable. And  the  argument  is  j)erfectly  conclusive,  if  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  be  what  is  here  stated.  But  it  is  be- 
lieved that  this  is  very  far  from  being  its  true  meaning,  as 
shown  above.  This  argument,  however,  it  appears,  is  not  in- 
sisted upon,  every  thing  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  context. 

Many  distinguished  commentators,  as  Alfonso  Turrettin, 
Knapp,  Tholuck,  Flatt,  Stuart,  consider  this  chapter,  from  v.  7  to 
tiie  end,  as  a  commentary  ujion  v.  5,  in  whicli  verse  the  state  of 

*  'He  who  lovclh  Christ,  kccpclh  his  coniniandmcnts,'  &c. 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  303 

those  who  are  in  "  the  flesh"  is  spoken  of;  and  the  first  part  of 
the  next  chapter  as  a  commentary  on  v.  6,  whicli  speaks  of 
those  who  are  no  longer  under  the  law.     Accordingly,  verses 
7 — 25  are  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a  man  yet  under  the 
law;  and  ch.  8:  1 — 17  of  those  of  a  man  under  the  gospel,  or 
of  a  believer.     It  is  said  that  the  two  passages  are  in  direct 
antithesis;  the  one  describes  the  state  of  a  captive  to  sin,  ch.  7: 
23,  and  the  other  the  state  of  one  who  is  delivered  from  sin, 
ch.   8:  2.     This   is  certainly  ingenious  and   plausible,   but  is 
founded  on  a  twofold  misapprehension;  first,  as  to  the  nature  of 
this  captivity  to  sin,  or  the  real  meaning  of  the  former  passage 
(ch.  7:  14 — 25);  and,  secondly,  as  to  the  correct  interpretation 
of  the  latter  passage,  or  ch.  8:  1 — 17.     If  ch.  7:  14 — 25  really 
describes  such  a  captivity  as  these  authors  suppose,  in  which 
the  individual  spoken  of '  succumbs  to  sin  in  every  instance,' 
there  is,  of  course,  an  end  of  the  question,  and  that  too  without 
any  appeal  to  the  context  for  support.     But,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  it  describes  no  such  state,  but,  as  Tholuck  and  Prof.  Stuart 
admit,  contains  nothing  which  might  not  be  said  of  the  Chris- 
tian, the  whole  force  of  the  argument  is  gone;  verses  7 — 25  are 
no  longer  necessarily  a  comment  on  v.  5;  nor  ch.  8:  1 — 17  on 
V.  6.     The  antithesis,  of  course,  ceases,  if  the  interpretation,  to 
which  it  owes  its  existence,  be  abandoned.     The  matter,  after 
all,  therefore,  is  made  to  depend  on  the  correct  exposition  of  the 
passage,  vs.  14 — 25,  itself.     A  particular  interpretation  cannot 
first  be  assumed,  in  order  to  make  out  the  antithesis;  and  then 
the  antithesis  be  assumed  to  justify  the  interpretation.     This 
would  be  reasoning  in  a  circle.     In  the  second  place,  this  view 
of  the  context  is  founded,  as  is  believed,  on  an  erroneous  exe- 
gesis of  ch.  8:  1 — 17.     The  first  part  of  that  chapter  is  not  so 
intimately  connected  with  the  latter  part  of  this,  nor  is  it  de- 
signed to  show  that  the  Christian  is  delivered  from  "  the  law 
of  sin  and  death"  in  his  members.     For  the  grounds  of  this 
statement,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  commentary  on  the  pas- 
sage in  question.    Even  if  the  reverse  were  the  fact,  still,  unless 
it  can  be  previously  shown  that  vs.  14 — 25  of  this  chapter  de- 
scribe the  state  of  a  man  under  the  law,  there  Is  no  ground  for 
the  assumption  of  such  an  antithesis  between  the  two  passages,  as 
is  supposed  in  the  view  of  the  context  stated  above.     Both 
passages  might  describe  the  same  individual  under  different 


304  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

aspects;  the  one  exhibiting  the  operation  of  the  law,  and  the 
other  that  of  the  gospel  on  the  renewed  mind.  But  if  the  ex- 
position given  below  of  ch.  8:  1—17  is  correct,  there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  foundation  for  the  argument  derived  from  the  con- 
text against  the  common  interpretation  of  ch.  7:  14 — 25. 

The  whole  tenor  of  the  apostle's  argument,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  epistle  to  the  close  of  this  chapter,  is  not  only 
consistent  with  the  common  interpretation,  l)ut  seems  absolutely 
to  demand  it.  His  great  object  in  the  first  eight  chapters,  is 
to  show  that  the  whole  work  of  the  sinner's  salvation,  his 
justification  and  sanctification,  are  not  of  the  law  but  of  grace; 
that  legal  obedience  can  never  secure  the  one,  nor  legal  efforts 
the  other.  Accordingly,  in  the  first  five  chapters,  he  shows 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  without  the  works  of  the  law;  in 
the  sixth,  that  this  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification,  instead  of 
leading  to  licentiousness,  presents  the  only  certain  and  effectual 
means  of  sanctification.  In  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  chapter, 
he  shows  that  the  believer  is  really  thus  free  from  the  law,  and  is 
now  under  grace;  and  that  while  under  the  law  he  brought  forth 
fruit  unto  sin,  but  being  under  grace,  he  now  brings  forth  fruit 
unto  God.  The  question  here  arises,  why  is  the  holy,  just  and 
good  law  thus  impotent  ?  Is  it  because  it  is  evil  ?  Far  from  it; 
the  reason  lies  in  our  own  corruption.  Then,  to  show  how  this 
is,  and  why  the  objective  and  authoritative  exhibition  of  trutli 
cannot  sanctify,  the  apostle  proceeds  to  show  how  it  actually 
operates  on  the  depraved  mind.  In  the  first  place,  it  enlightens 
conscience,  and,  in  the  second,  it  rouses  the  opposition  of  the 
corrupt  heart.  These  are  the  two  elements  of  conviction  of  sin; 
a  knowledge  of  its  nature,  and  a  sense  of  its  power  over  our- 
selves. Hence  the  feeling  of  self-condemnation,  of  helplessness 
and  misery.  Thus  the  law  slays.  This  is  one  portion  of  its 
effect,  but  not  the  whole;  for  even  after  the  heart  is  renewed, 
as  it  is  but  imperfectly  sanctified,  the  law  is  still  unable  to 
promote  holiness'.  The  reason  here  again  is  not  that  the  law  is 
evil,  but  that  we  are  carnal,  v.  14.  Indwelling  sin,  as  the 
apostle  calls  it,  is  the  cause  why  the  law  cannot  effect  the 
sanctification  even  of  the  believer.  It  presents  indeed  the  form 
of  beauty,  and  the  soul  delights  in  it  after  the  inward  man; 
but  the  corru])t  affections,  which  turn  to  self  and  the  world,  are 
still  there;  these  the  law  cannot  destroy.     But  though  the  law 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  305 

cannot  do  this,  it  shall  eventually  be  done.     Thanks  to  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  our  case  is  not  hopeless. 

The  apostle's  object  would  have  been  but  half  attained,  had 
he  not  thus  exhibited  the  effect  of  the  law  upon  the  believer's 
mind,  and  demonstrated  that  a  sense  of  legal  bondage  was  not 
necessary  to  the  Christian,  and  could  not  secure  his  sanctification. 
Having  done  this,  his  object  is  accomplished.  The  eighth  chap- 
ter, therefore,  is  not  so  intimately  connected  with  the  seventh. 
It  does  not  commence  with  an  inference  from  the  discussion  in 
vs.  7 — 25,  but  from  the  whole  preceding  exhibition.  "  There 
is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ 
Jesus."  Why?  Because  they  are  sanctified  ?  No;  but  because 
they  are  not  under  the  law.  This  is  the  main  point  from  first 
to  last.  They  are  delivered  from  that  law,  which,  however 
good  in  itself,  can  only  produce  sin  and  death,  v.  2.  In  view 
of  this  insufficiency  of  the  law,  God,  having  sent  his  Son  as  a 
sacrifice  for  sin, has  delivered  them  from  it,  by  condemning  sin  in 
him,  and  has  thus  secured  the  justification  of  believers.  Through 
him  they  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  and  their  salvation  is 
rendered  certain.  This,  however,  implies  that  they  do  not  live 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  agreeably  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  sixth  chapter,  for  salvation  in  sin  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  such  antithesis  between  the  seventh 
and  eight  chapters,  as  the  opposite  interpretation  supposes.  It 
is  not  the  design  of  the  latter  to  show  that  men  are  delivered 
from  indwelling  sin;  or  that  the  conflict  between  the  "law  in 
the  members"  and  "the  law  of  the  mind,"  between  the  flesh 
and  Spirit,  ceases  when  men  embrace  the  gospel.  But  it  shows 
that  this  consummation  is  secured  to  all  who  are  in  Christ,  to 
all  who  do  not  deliberately  and  of  choice  walk  after  the  flesh, 
and  make  it  their  guide  and  master.  In  virtue  of  deliverance 
from  the  law,  and  introduction  into  a  state  of  grace,  the  believer 
has  not  only  his  acceptance  with  God,  but  his  final  deliverance 
from  sin  secured.  Sin  shall  not  triumph  in  those  who  have  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  and  who,  by  that  Spirit,  mortify  the  deeds  of 
the  body. 

If  then  the  context  is  altogether  favourable  to  the  ordinary 
interpretation;  if  the  passage  is  accurately  descriptive  of  Chris- 
tian experience,  and  analogous  to  other  inspired  accounts  of  the 
exercises  of  the  renewed  heart;  if  not  merely  particular  expres- 

39 


306  ROMANS  7:  14—25. 

sions,  but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse  is  inconsistent  with 
the  scriptural  account  of  the  natural  man;  and  if  Paul,  in  the 
use  of  the  first  person  and  the  present  tense,  cannot,  without 
violence,  be  considered  otherwise  than  as  expressing  his  own 
feelings  while  writing,  we  have  abundant  reason  to  rest  satisfied 
with  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage. 


Doctrines. 

1.  No  man  is  perfectly  sanctified  in  this  life.  At  least,  Paul 
was  not,  according  to  his  own  confession,  when  he  wrote  this 
passage,  vs.  14 — 25. 

2.  The  law  is  spiritual,  that  is,  perfect,  deriving  its  character 
from  its  author,  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  the  unerring 
standard  of  duty,  and  the  source  of  moral  liglit  or  knowledge. 
It  should,  therefore,  be  every  where  known  and  studied,  and 
faithfully  applied  as  the  rule  of  judgment  for  our  own  conduct 
and  that  of  others.  Evangelical  doctrines,  therefore,  which 
teach  the  necessity  of  freedom  from  the  law  as  a  covenant  of 
works,  i.  e.  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our  justification  before 
God,  derogate  neither  from  its  excellence  nor  its  authority. 
It  is  left  to  do  its  proper  work  in  the  economy  of  redemption; 
to  convince  of  sin,  and  be  a  guide  to  duty,  v.  14,  &c. 

3.  The  mere  presentation  of  truth,  apart  from  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit,  can  neither  renew  nor  sanctify  the  heart, 
V.  14,  &c. 

4.  Inability  is  consistent  with  accountability.  "  To  per- 
form that  which  is  good  I  find  not,"  that  is,  I  cannot,  v. 
18.  Gal.  5:  17.  As  the  scriptures  constantly  recognise  the 
truth  of  these  two  things,  so  are  they  consUmtly  united  in 
Christian  experience.  Every  one  feels  that  he  cannot  do  the 
things  that  he  would,  yet  is  sensible  that  he  is  guilty  for  not 
doing  them.  Let  any  man  test  his  power  by  the  requisition  to 
love  God  perfectly  at  all  times.  Alas,  how  entire  our  inability ! 
yet  how  deep  our  self-loathing  and  self-condemnation! 

5.  The  emotions  and  affections  do  not  obey  a  determination 
of  the  will,  vs.  16,  IS,  19,  21.  A  change  of  purpose,  therefore, 
is  not  a  change  of  heart. 

6.  The  Christian's  victory  over  sin  cannot  be  achieved  by 
the  strength  of  his  resolutions,  nor  by  the  plainness  and  force 


ROMANS  7:  14—25.  307 

of  moral  motives,  nor  by  any  resources  within  himself.  He 
looks  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  conquers  in  his  strength.  In  other 
words,  the  victory  is  not  obtained  in  the  way  of  nature,  but  of 
grace,  vs.  14 — 25. 

Remarks. 

1.  As  the  believer's  life  is  a  constant  conflict,  those  who  do 
not  struggle  against  sin,  and  endeavour  to  subdue  it,  are  not  true 
Christians,  vs.  14 — 25. 

2.  The  person  here  described  hates  sin,  v.  15;  acknowledges 
and  delights  in  the  spirituality  of  the  divine  law,  vs.  16,  22;  he 
considers  his  corruption  a  dreadful  burden,  from  which  he 
earnestly  desires  to  be  delivered,  v.  24.  These  are  exercises 
of  genuine  piety,  and  should  be  applied  as  tests  of  character. 

3.  It  is  an  evidence  of  an  unrenewed  heart  to  express  or  feel 
opposition  to  the  law  of  God  as  though  it  were  too  strict;  or 
to  be  disposed  to  throw  off  the  blame  of  our  want  of  conformity 
to  the  divine  will  from  ourselves  upon  the  law  as  unreasonable. 
The  renewed  man  condemns  himself,  and  justifies  God,  even 
while  he  confesses  and  mourns  his  inability  to  conform  to  the 
divine  requisitions,  vs.  14 — 25. 

4.  The  strength  and  extent  of  the  corruption  of  our  nature 
are  seen  from  its  influence  over  the  best  of  men,  and  from  its 
retaining  more  or  less  of  its  power,  under  all  circumstances,  to 
the  end  of  life,  v.  25. 

5.  This  corruption,  although  its  power  is  acknowledged,  so 
far  from  being  regarded  as  an  excuse  or  palliation  for  our  indi- 
vidual offences,  is  recognised  as  the  greatest  aggravation  of  our 
guilt.  To  say,  with  the  feelings  of  the  apostle,  "  I  am  carnal," 
is  to  utter  the  strongest  language  of  self-condemnation  and 
self-abhorrence,  vs.  14 — 25. 

6.  Although  the  believer  is  never  perfectly  sanctified  in  this 
life,  his  aim  and  efforts  are  ever  onward;  and  the  experience  of 
the  power  of  indwelling  sin,  teaches  him  the  value  of  heaven, 
and  prepares  him  for  the  enjoyment  of  it,  vs.  14 — 25. 


308  ROMANS  S:  1—11. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Contents. 

Paul  had  now  finished  his  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion. He  had  shown  that  we  are  justified  gratuitously,  that  is, 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  without  the  works  of  the  law.  He  had 
proved  that,  so  far  from  this  freedom  from  the  law  leading 
to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  it  is  necessary  to  our  sanctification, 
because  the  law  is  as  inadequate  to  the  production  of  holiness 
in  the  sinner,  as  it  is  to  secure  pardon  or  acceptance  with 
God.  That  such  is  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  he  proved  by 
exhibiting  its  operation  both  on  the  renewed  and  unrenewed 
mind.  Having  accomplished  all  this,  he  leaves,  in  the  chapter 
before  us,  the  field  of  logical  argument,  and  enters  on  the  new 
and  more  elevated  sphere  of  joyous  exultation.  As,  however, 
there  is  always  warmth  of  feeling  in  the  apostle's  argument,  so 
also  is  there  generally  logical  arrangement  in  his  highest  tri- 
umphs. 

His  theme  here  is  the  security  of  believers.  The  salvation 
of  those  who  have  renounced  the  law  and  accepted  the  gracious 
offers  of  the  gospel  is  shown  to  be  absolutely  certain.  The 
whole  chapter  is  a  series  of  arguments  most  beautifully  arranged 
in  support  of  this  one  point.  They  are  all  traced  back  to  the 
great  source  of  hope  and  security,  the  unmerited  and  unchanging 
love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  proposition  is  contained  in 
the  first  verse.  There  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are  in 
Christ  Jesus;  they  shall  never  be  condemned  or  perish. 

1.  Because  they  are  delivered  from  the  law;  all  its  demands 
being  fulfilled  in  them  by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
vs.  1 — 4.  2.  Because  their  salvation  is  actually  begun  in  the 
regeneration  and  sanctification  of  their  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Those  who  have  the  Spirit  of  Christ  have  the  Spirit 
of  life,  vs.  5 — 11.  3.  Not  only  is  their  salvation  begun,  but 
they  are  the  children  of  God,  and  if  children,  they  are  heirs, 
V.  12 — 17.  4.  The  afflictions  which  they  may  be  called  to 
endure,  are  not  inconsistent  with  this  filial  relation  to  God,  be- 
cause they  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  glory 
that  shall  be  revealed  in  them;  and  under  these  afflictions  they 
are  sustained  both  by  hope  and  the  intercessions  of  the  Holy 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  309 

Spirit,  vs.  18 — 28.  5.  Because  they  are  predestinated  to  the 
attainment  of  eternal  life;  of  which  predestination  their  present 
sanctification  or  eflectual  calling  is  the  result,  and,  therefore,  the 
evidence,  vs.  28 — 30.  6.  Because  God  has  given  his  Son  to 
die  for  them,  and  thereby  to  secure  their  justification  and  sal- 
vation, vs.  31 — 34.  7.  Because  the  love  of  God  is  infinite  and 
unchangeable;  from  which  nothing  can  separate  us,  vs.  35 — 39. 
Thus  from  the  proximate  cause  of  salvation  or  the  indwelling 
of  the  Spirit,  does  the  apostle  rise  with  ever-increasing  confi- 
dence to  the  great  source  and  fountain  of  all,  in  the  love  of 
God.* 

Although,  according  to  this  view  of  the  chapter,  it  is  one 
whole,  it  may,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  be  divided  into 
three  sections. 


CHAP.  8:  1—11. 

Analysis. 
This  section  contains  the  development  of  the  first  two  of  the 
apostle's  arguments  in  favour  of  the  position,  that  those  who 
are  in  Christ  Jesus  shall  never  be  condemned.  The  immediate 
reason  is  assigned  in  the  second  verse,  they  are  delivered  from 
the  law.  For  in  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  God  sent 
forth  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  v.  3,  and  thus  secured  the 
justification  of  all  believers,  v.  4.  Being  thus  delivered  from 
the  law,  they  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  and 
this  possession  of  the  Spirit  is  incipient  salvation:  because  the 
carnal  mind,  which,  of  course,  all  who  are  in  the  flesh  possess, 
is  death;  whereas  a  mind  under  the  government  of  the  Spirit 
is  life  and  peace.  Such  is  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  Holi- 
ness is  salvation,  vs.  5 — 7.  The  reason  that  death  is  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  being  carnally  minded,  is  the  essential 
opposition  between  such  a  state  of  mind  and  God.  Hence, 
those  who  have  this  state  of  mind  are  the  objects  of  the  divine 
displeasure,  vs.  7,  8.  As,  however,  believers  are  not  under  the 
government  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  Spirit,  their  salvation  is 
secured  even  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.     For  if  the  Spirit 

*  The  same  general  view  of  the  design  of  this  chapter,  and  of  the  course  of  the 
apostle's  argument,  is  given  in  the  analysis  of  this  epistle  by  Stephen  de  Brais. 


310  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

of  him,  who  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  them,  he 
shall  also  quicken  their  mortal  hodies,  vs.  9 — 11. 

Commentary. 

(1)    There  is,  therefore,  noiv  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus.     It  is  a  matter  of  considerable  im- 
portance to  the  understanding  of  this  chapter,  to  decide  what 
is  its  precise  relation  to  the  preceding  part  of  the  epistle.     The 
word  therefore  indicates  that  what  follows  is  an  inference:  but 
from  what?    From  the  conclusion  of  the  seventh  chapter,  or 
from  the  whole  previous  discussion  ?    The  latter  seems  to  be 
the  only  correct  view  of  the  context;  because  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  condemnation  to  believers,  is  no  fair  inference  from 
what  is  said  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.     Paul  does 
not  mean  to  say,  as  Luther  and  others  explain  v.  1,  there  is 
nothing  worthy  of  condemnation  in  the  Christian,  because,  with 
his  mind,  he  serves  the  law  of  God.     Nor  does  he  mean,  at 
least  in  the  first  few  verses,  to  argue  that  believers  shall  not  be 
condemned,  because  they  are  freed  from  the  dominion  of  sin. 
But  the  inference,  in  the  first  verse,  is  the  legitimate  conclusion 
of  all  that  Paul  had  previously  established.     Believers  shall  be 
saved,  because  they  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace, 
which  is  the  main  point  in  all  that  Paul  has  yet  said.     There 
is,  therefore,  now,  i.  e.  under  these  circumstances,  viz.  the  cir- 
cumstances set  forth  in  the  previous  part  of  the  epistle. 

To  be  in  Christ  Jesns  signifies  to  be  intimately  united  to 
him,  in  the  way  in  which  the  scriptures  teach  us  this  union  is 
effected,  viz.  by  having  his  Spirit  dwelling  in  us,  v.  9.  The 
phrase  is  never  expressive  of  a  merely  external  or  nominal 
union.  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature," 
2  Co.  5:  17.  See  John  15:4,  &c.  1  John  2:  5.  3:  6.  To  be  in 
Christ,  and  to  have  fellowship  with  him,  are,  with  the  apostle 
John,  convertible  expressions;  see  also  llom.  16:  7,  11. 

Who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit.  These 
words  may  be  understood,  1.  as  descriptive  of  the  character  of 
those  who  are  in  Christ;  2.  as  assigning  the  reason  why  there 
is  no  condemnation  to  them,  viz.  because  they  walk  not,  &c.;* 

"^"/'  *  In  the  Greek  the  participle  is  here  used,  which  often  has  the  force  that  this  in- 
terpretation would  assign  to  it.  Rom.  10:3,  Bein^  ignorant,  i.  e.  because  they 
were  ignorant,     tiecking,  i.  e.  because  they  sought,  &c. 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  311 

or,  3.  as  describing  the  condition  on  which  the  blessing  depends, 
'  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them,  provided  they  walk  not, 
&c.'  The  first  and  last  of  these  views  may  be  united,  and  ex- 
press the  real  meaning  of  the  apostle. 

To  ivalk  after  is,  in  scripture  language,  to  regulate  the  life 
and  conduct  according  to,  to  follow  as  a  guide  or  leader, 
Acts  21:  21.  Eph.  2:  2,  &c.  &c.  The  flesh  is  our  corrupt  na- 
ture. Spirit  is  either  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  as  opposed  to  flesh, 
our  hearts  considered  as  renewed.  The  former  is  much  to  be 
preferred,  for  this  is  the  sense  of  the  word  through  the  whole 
passage.  The  meaning  of  this  clause  then  is,  '  Those  who  are 
in  Christ  do  not  regulate  their  conduct  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  corrupt  hearts,  but  follow  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  If  the  Spirit  dwells  in  us,  he  regulates  our  opinions, 
feelings  and  external  conduct.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  to 
say,  in  opposition  to  the  preceding  chapter  and  to  all  experience, 
that  believers  never  yield  to  the  suggestions  of  the  flesh;  but 
he  simply  expresses  what  is  the  constant  aim  and  general  cha- 
racter of  the  Christian's  life.* 

(2)  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  &c. 
This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  there  is  no  condemnation  to 
those  who  are  in  Christ,  as  is  evident  from  the  use  oi  for,  with 
which  the  verse  commences. 

The  law  of  the  Spirit  is  here  opposed  to  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  mentioned  in  the  other  clause  of  the  verse.  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  one  phrase,  therefore,  must  decide  that  of  the 
other.  There  are  three  different  views  which  may  be  taken  of 
the  verse.  1.  The  word  law  may  be  used  here  as  it  is  in  vs.  21, 
23  of  ch.  7,  for  a  directing  power;  and  Spirit,  by  metonymy, 
for  that  which  the  Spirit  produces,  i.  e.  sanctified  affections;  and 
the  words  of  life  may  mean,  producing  life.  The  sense  would 
then  be,  '  The  power  of  the  renewed  principle  which  tends  to 
life,  has  delivered  me  from  the  power  of  sin  which  tends  to 

*  The  whole  of  tliis  clause  is  found  in  the  majority  of  the  Greek  MSS,  Some, 
however,  as  C.  D.  F.  G.  omit  it,  as  do  also  several  of  the  versions,  as  the  Coptic 
and  Ethiopic.  Other  MSS.  as  A.  D.  (the  latter  as  corrected),  and  the  A^ulgate 
and  Syriac  versions  omit  only  the  latter  part.  Mill,  Semleb,  Ghiesbach,  Kxapp, 
and  Lachmann  consider  the  whole  clause  as  spurious.  Bengel  and  MoKrs  only 
the  latter  portion  of  it.  In  the  midst  of  such  contrariety  in  the  MSS.  and  versions, 
there  can  be  no  certainty  as  to  the  true  reading.  The  same  words  occur  again  in 
V.  4. 


312  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

death.'  In  other  words, '  The  law  of  the  mind  has  delivered  me 
from  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  the  members.'  So  Beza  and  many 
others.  2.  The  word  laiv  is  taken  in  nearly  the  same  sense;  but 
Spiril  of  life  is  understood  to  mean  the  Holy  Spirit,  considered 
as  the  author  of  life.  The  sense  then  is, '  The  power  of  the  life- 
giving  Spirit  has  delivered  me  from  the  dominion  of  the  law 
of  sin  and  death  in  my  members.'  So  Calvin*  and  others. 
3.  According  to  the  third  view,  the.  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  is 
the  gospel,  i.  e.  the  law  of  which  the  life-giving  Spirit  is  the 
author.  Of  course,  the  other  member  of  the  verse,  instead  of 
describing  the  corrupt  principle  in  men,  means  the  law  of  God, 
which,  as  Paul  had  taught  in  ch.  7,  is  incidentally  the  cause  of 
sin  and  death.  The  sense  of  the  passage  then  is,  '  The  gospel 
has  delivered  me  from  the  law.  '     So  Witsius,  &.c. 

This  last  seems  decidedly  to  be  preferred  for  the  following 
reasons:  1.  Although  the  two  former  interpretations  are  con- 
sistent with  Paul's  use  of  the  word  laiv,  neither  of  them  so 
well  suits  the  context,  because  neither  assigns  the  reason  why 
believers  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation.  Paul  asserts  that 
those  who  are  in  Christ  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour. 
Why?  Because  they  are  sanctified?  No;  but  because  they 
have  been  freed  from  the  law  and  its  demands,  and  introduced 
into  a  state  of  grace. t  2.  It  is  not  true  that  believers  are  de- 
livered from  the  law  of  sin  in  their  members.  If  the  terms 
law  of  the  Spirit  and  law  of  sin  are  to  be  understood  of  the 
good  and  evil  principle  in  the  Christian,  how  can  it  be  said  that 
by  the  former,  he  is,  in  this  life,  delivered  from  the  latter?  This 
would  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  ch.  7  and  to  experience. 
3.  The  terms  here  used  may  naturally  be  so  understood,  be- 
cause the  word  laiv,  in  its  general  sense,  as  rule,  is  applicable, 

*  Legem  spiritus  improprio  vocat  Dei  Spiritiim,  qui  animas  nostras  Cliristi  san- 
guine aspergit,  non  tantum  ut  a  peccati  lahe  emuiulet  quoad  reatum;  sed  in  veram 
puritatcm  sanctificet. 

•j-  There  are  two  ideas  included  in  the  general  proposition  contained  in  the  first 
verse.  The  first  is,  that  believers  are  justified ;  and  the  second,  as  implied  in  the 
former,  that  they  shall  be  finally  saved.  The  first  is  the  most  prominent,  as  far  as 
the  proper  force  of  the  words  is  concerned,  and  gives  form  to  the  first  and  most 
important  argument  in  support  of  the  general  proposition.  This  argument  is,  that 
they  arc  freed  from  the  covenant  of  works.  Hence  there  is  to  them  no  condcnuia- 
tion.  The  subsequent  arguments  then  come  in  naturally  in  support  of  the  second 
idea  of  the  first  verse,  '  Believers  are  not  only  justified,  but  shall  finally  be  saved, 
because  their  salvation  is  begun,  because  they  arc  the  children  of  God,  &c.  &c.' 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  313 

and  is  applied  to  the  gospel,  Rom.  3:  27,  especially  when  stand- 
ing in  antithesis  to  the  law  of  works.  The  gospel  is  called  the 
law  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  is  its  author;  see  the  phrase  "  min- 
istration of  the  Spirit,"  2  Cor.  3:8.  In  the  other  member  of 
the  verse  the  law  is  called  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  because 
productive  of  sin  and  death.  This  is  no  more  than  what  Paul 
had  said  expressly  of  the  law  in  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  5, 
13,  &c.  4,  This  interpretation  alone  assigns  an  adequate  ground 
for  the  declaration  of  the  preceding  verse.  That  declaration, 
the  result  of  all  that  Paul  had  yet  proved,  is,  that  believers,  and 
believers  alone,  are  perfectly  safe;  and  the  reason  assigned  is  the 
sum  of  all  the  argument  from  the  commencement  of  the  epistle. 
They  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace;  the  law  of  the  Spirit 
has  freed  them  from  the  old  law  of  works.  5.  The  next  verse 
favours,  if  it  does  not  absolutely  demand,  this  interpretation. 
It  gives  the  reason  why  believers  are  thus  freed  from  the  law, 
viz.  it  was  insufficient  for  their  salvation,  "  it  was  weak  through 
the  flesh." 

The  words  in  Christ  Jesus  may  belong  to  the  whole  pre- 
ceding clause.  "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  which  is  by 
Christ  Jesus."  Or  as  the  absence  of  the  article,  in  the  original, 
would  seem  to  require,  with  the  verb  which  follows,  "  Has  made 
me  free  through  Christ  Jesus,"  (Winer's  Gramm.  p.  120). 
According  to  this  interpretation,  then,  the  meaning  of  this 
verse,  in  connexion  with  the  preceding,  is,  '  There  is  no  con- 
demnation to  those  who  are  in  Christ,  because  they  have  been 
freed  by  the  gospel  from  the  dominion  of  that  law,  which, 
although  good  in  itself,  is  the  cause  of  sin  and  death.'  Being 
thus  delivered  from  the  bondage  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  a 
corresponding  legal  spirit,  and  introduced  into  a  state  of  favour 
with  God,  their  sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned  for  Christ's 
sake,  they  become  partakers  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  holy  affec- 
tions spring  up  in  their  hearts,  and  all  the  divine  attributes  are 
pledged  for  their  salvation. 

(3)  The  connexion  between  this  and  the  preceding  verse  is 
obvious.     We  are  freed  from  the  law  because  the  law  was  weak, 
i.  e.  inadequate  for  the  purpose  of  our  salvation.     This  con-, 
nexion  serves  to  show  that  the  interpretation  just  given  of  the 
second  verse  is  correct. 

For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  ivas  weak  through 

40 


1^ 


314  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

the  flesh,  &c.  The  Greek,*  which  is  placed  in  the  margin, 
admits  either  of  the  version  here  given,  the  impossibility  of 
the  law  being  taken  for  ivhat  was  impossible  to  the  law;  or 
it  may  be  explained  thus,  as  to  or  on  account  of  the  im.po- 
tence  of  the  law,  &c.  The  latter  method  is  decidedly  to  be 
preferred.  1.  Because  the  grammatical  construction  is  in  its 
favour.  The  whole  clause  stands  absolutely,  or  may  be  governed 
by  a  preposition  understood.  2.  Because  the  sense  is  incom- 
plete according  to  the  other  view.  "What  the  law  could  not 
do,  that  God  did,  sending  his  son."  There  is  nothing  in 
the  original  to  answer  to  the  words  marked  in  italics.  The 
attentive  reader  will  perceive  that  the  verse  in  our  translation 
does  not  make  the  sense  complete.  According  to  the  second 
view,  nothing  need  be  supplied.  .3.  Because  the  meaning  thus 
afforded  is  good  and  suited  to  the  context.  '  We  are  freed  from 
the  law,  for  in  view  of,  or  on  account  of  its  inadequacy,  God 
having  sent  his  Son,  &c.'  What  is  here  said  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  law  generally,  is  said  especially  of  the  form  in  which  it 
appeared  in  the  Mosaic  institutions  in  Acts  13:  39.  Gal.  3:21. 
Heb.  7:  18,  19,  and  is  indeed  proved  at  length  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews. 

This  inadequacy  of  the  law,  however,  Paul  says,  arises  from 
no  inherent  defect,  but  from  the  corruption  of  men.  In  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh.  The  same  sentiment  as  that 
taught  in  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  7 — 25.  In  that,  i.  e.  be- 
cause that,  see  Heb.  2:  18.  Paul  uses  the  word  flesh  here  in 
its  common  sense  for  corruption,  or  human  nature  considered 
as  corrupt,  see  above  on  Rom.  7:14.  God  sending  his  own  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  &c. ;  his  own  Son;  him  who 
was  a  partaker  of  his  own  nature.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Son  as  applied  to  Christ;  see  ch.  1:  4.  John  1:  14.  5:  17, 
&c.  10:  30 — 39.  The  greatness  of  the  gift  and  the  urgency  of 
the  necessity  are  therefore  presented  in  the  strongest  light  by 
these  few  words. 

In  the  like7iess  of  sinful  flesh,  i.  e.  in  a  nature  similar  to 
the  nature  of  sinful  men.  So  in  Phil.  2:  7,  Christ  is  said  to 
have  come  "  in  the  likeness  of  men."  The  similarity  extended 
to  all  points  except  sin;  Heb.  2:  17.  4:  15.  John   1:  14,  where 

To  ya^  d(5tjvaTov  tou  vo'/jlou. 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  315 

also  the  word  flesh  is  used  as  here  for  the  nature  in  which 
Christ  appeared.  We  have  in  this  verse  a  distinct  reference  to 
the  two  natures  of  the  Redeemer.  The  Son  of  God  in  human 
nature;  see  Gal.  4:  4. 

^nd  for  sin.  These  words  are  to  be  connected  with  the 
preceding.  God  not  only  sent  his  Son  in  our  nature,  but  he 
sent  him  for  sin.  That  is,  either  generally  on  account  of  sin, 
or,  more  specially,  as  a  sin  offering.  This  latter  is  to  be 
preferred,  for  the  original  words*  are  frequently  so  used, 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  The  full  phrase  is  a 
sacrifice  for  sin.  See  precisely  these  words  in  Heb.  10:  6. 
Lev.  6:  25.  Num.  S:  8.  Ps.  40:  6.  This  sense  too  is  best  suited 
to  what  follows. 

Condemned  sin  in  the  flesh.  The  phrase  condemned  sin 
may  be  understood  to  mean  he  destroyed  sin,  or  he  pun- 
ished sin.  In  either  case  the  words  in  the  flesh  may  mean  in 
human  nature.  According  to  the  former  view  this  clause 
means  '  He  destroyed  sin  in  our  corrupt  nature;'  and  the  whole 
point  of  the  verse  is,  that  because  the  law  could  not  effect  our 
sanctification,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  on  account  of  sin,  and 
destroyed  it  in  us.  According  to  the  other  view,  the  meaning  is, 
'  That  God  sent  his  Son  as  a  sin-offering  and  thus  punished  sin  in 
the  flesh,'  i.  e.  either  in  his  flesh,  of  which  mention  had  just  been 
made,  or  in  human  nature,  a  nature  like  our  own.  That  the 
latter  is  the  true  meaning,  appears  evident,  1.  Because  the  word 
rendered  condemned  never  means  simply  to  destroy\  or 
remove.  The  other  interpretation,  therefore,  is  contrary  to 
usage,  2.  This  interpretation  best  suits  the  other  part  of  the 
verse.  A  sacrifice  has  reference  rather  to  the  guilt  of  sin,  than 
to  its  impurity;  it  procures  pardon  immediately,  sanctification 


*  n^^j  ajxa^Ti'as. — ^ee  Sciilkusneu's  Thesaurus  of  the  LXX.  on  the  word 

\  This  is  the  only  place  in  which  Wahl  assigns  to  xaTaxfivu  the  sense  oi  de- 
siroi/ing  in  the  New  Testament.  In  John  12:  31.  16:  11,  to  which  Tholuck  re- 
fers, somctliing  more  is  meant  than  that  the  prince  of  this  world  is  destroyed.  He 
is  condemned  and,  by  condemnation,  deprived  of  power.  Tholuck,  who  wishes 
apparently  to  include  doth  ideas,  seems  to  consider  the  former  as  the  more  promi- 
nent. "  The  idea,"  he  says,  "  is  very  common  in  the  New  Testament,  that  sin  was 
punished  in  the  appearing  of  Christ,  or  that  the  punishment  of  sin  was  borne  by 
Christ," 


316  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

% 

only  mediately.  By  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  sin  was,  therefore, 
condemned,  rather  than  destroyed  or  removed.  3.  The  follow- 
ing verse  requires  this  interpretation.  Sin  was  condemned  in 
Christ,  in  order  that  we  might  be  justified.  4,  The  whole 
context  requires  it.  Paul's  object  is  not  to  show  that  we  are 
not  exposed  to  condemnation,  because  we  are  delivered  from 
the  law  of  sin  in  our  members,  and  that  we  are  thus  delivered 
because  the  power  of  sin,  '  which  the  law  could  not  destroy, 
God  has  destroyed  by  the  mission  of  his  Son.'  This  view  of 
the  context  we  have  already  endeavoured  to  show  is  not  cor- 
rect. The  apostle  argues  thus,  '  There  is  no  condemnation  to 
believers  because  they  are  not  under  the  law.  They  are  free 
from  that  legal  system,  because  God,  seeing  its  insufficiency, 
sent  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  thus  condemned  sin,  that 
we  might  be  free  from  the  demands  of  the  law,  or  might  thus 
satisfy  its  claims.'* 

It  is  not  meant  to  be  denied  in  the  interpretation  just  given 
of  this  important  verse,  that  the  deliverance  of  believers  from 
sin  is  the  result  of  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  or  that 
this  idea  was  not  uniformly  associated  in  the  apostle's  mind 
with  their  justification.  All  that  is  intended  is  to  show  that,  in 
this  connexion,  where  freedom  from  condemnation,  deliverance 
from  the  law,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  condemnation  of  sin 
are  spoken  of;  the  main  idea  is  the  justification  and  not  the 
sanctification  of  believers. 

(4)  That  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fidjilled 
in  i(s,  &:c.  These  words  express  the  design  and  result  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  righteousness  of  the  laiv\  means  that 
which  the  law  demands.  'That  the  demands  of  the  law 
might  be  fulfilled  in  us,'  may,  however,  mean  either  that  we 
might  obey  the  law,  or  that  we  might  be  freed  from  its  de- 
mands, that  is,  be  justified.  That  tlic  latter  is  the  true  meaning 
here,  seems  evident,  1,  Because  this  interpretation  alone  suits 

•   See  Srnnn's  Brief  an  die  HcbrUcv,  491. 

Deus  (id  quod  lex  iion  poterat,  nempe  eondomnaie  peceatum  salvo  peccatore) 
condemnavit  pecratum. — Bengel.  There  is;  no  condemnation  to  us  (v.  1),  though 
there  b  to  sin.  Wc  are  not  punished,  but  sin  is  punished  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
and  thus  wc  are  freed  from  the  law. 

f  Aixaiw/xa  may  a{so  mean  se)tte>ice,  in  which  sense  Storr  takes  it  here,  'That 
the  judgment  of  the  la#  might  be  fulfilled  on  us,  sin  was  punished  in  Christ.' 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  317 

the  context,  if  the  view  given  of  the  previous  verses  is  correct. 
All  the  arguments,  therefore,  in  favour  of  that  view,  support 
this  interpretation,  and   need    not   he   repeated.      2.  Because 
in  scriptural  language  the  pardon  of  sin  is  the  direct  object 
of  the   sacrifice  of  Christ,  and,  therefore,  this  verse,   which 
expresses  this  object,  must  mean  we  are  justified  rather  than 
that  we  are  sanctified.     3.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse  would, 
as   Calvin  remarks,  in   the  other   case  be  superfluous.     Why 
should  it  he  said  that  the  law  is  obeyed  by  those  who  obey 
the  law,  that  is,  who  walk  after  the  Spirit  ?     But  there  is, 
if  the  second   interpretation    is  correct,   a    necessity  for   this 
additional  clause,  as  a  caution,  that  the  blessing  of  gratuitous 
forgiveness  is   confined   to  those  who  are  holy.     This  verse, 
therefore,  expresses  nearly  the  same  idea  with  the  first.     It  is 
there  said,  '  there  is  no  condemnation  to  us  who  walk  after  the 
Spirit,'  and  here,  that '  the  demands  of  the  law  are  fulfilled  in 
us  who  thus  walk.'     Tliey  are  fulfilled  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
and  the  punishment  of  sin  in  him.     He  was  made  sin,  or  treated 
as  a  sinner,  for  us,  that  we  might  be   made  righteousness,  or 
treated  as  righteous  in  him,  2  Cor.  5:  21.*     4.  There  is  another 
argument  of  much  weight,  and  that  is,  it  is  not  true  that  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  by  believers   in   this  life. 
This  language  appears  too  strong  if  it  refers  to  what  the  Chris- 
tian himself  docs.     For  an  exposition  of  the  latter  member  of 
this  verse,  see  above  v.  1.     These  words  are  here  added  to  show 
that  those  only  can  hope  for  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death  who 
experience  its  proximate  results  in  this  life,  in  their  own  sancti- 
fication.     The  bible  gives  no  hope  of  heaven  to  those  who  live 
in  sin. 

(5)  For  they  iliat  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things 
of  the  flesh,  &c.  The  immediate  object  of  this  and  the  following 
verse  is  to  justify  the  necessity  of  the  limitation  of  the  blessings 
of  Christ's  death,  to  those  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit.  The  for,  therefore,  connects  this  verse,  not 
with  the  main  idea,  but  with  the  last  clause  of  the  pi-eceding. 
Men  must  be  holy,  because  sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is 

*  Tholuck  says  that  Buckh  is  the  only  one  of  the  evangelical  commentators 
who  refers  tliis  verse  "  to  the  subjective  side  of  justification,"  i.  e.  to  sanctification. 


318  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

life  and  peace.     The  necessity  oi^  spiriiualifi/,  therefore,  Vies  in 
the  very  nature  of  things. 

Thei/  who  are  after  the  flesh,  those  ivho  are  in  the  flesh, 
the  carnal,  are  expressions  of  like  import,  and  describe  those 
who  are  governed  by  the  flesh,  or  by  their  nature  considered 
as  corrupt.  The  corresponding  series,  they  ivho  are  after  the 
Spirit,  ivho  arc  in  the  Spirit,  the  spiritual,  dcscrilje  those  who 
are  under  the  government  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  the  former 
class  it  is  said  they  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,  of  the  latter, 
they  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  The  word  rendered  they 
mind  expresses  primarily  the  exercise  of  the  intellect  they 
attend  to,  but,  secondarily,  and  by  implication,  the  exercise  of 
the  aflections,  of  which  the  other  is  the  result.  Hence,  in  Col. 
3:  2,  it  is  correctly  rendered  in  the  passage,  "  Set  your  affection 
on  things  above."  See  also  Phil.  3:19.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  word  mind  as  used  by  our  translators.  The  idea 
evidently  is,  that  the  objects  of  attention,  desire  and  pursuit  to 
the  carnal  are  corrupt  and  worldly;  while  to  the  spiritual  they 
are  the  things  which  the  Spirit  proposes  and  approves. 

(6)  For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  deat/i,  &c.  This  is  the 
next  step  in  the  apostle's  argument.  For  is  here  a  mere  particle 
of  transition,  and  is  equivalent  to  bnt,  '  They  who  are  after  the 
flesh  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,  but  to  mind  the  things  of  the 
flesh,  or  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.'  It  is  clear  that  to  be 
carnally  minded  is  exactly  what  is  meant  b}^  the  corresponding 
phrase  in  the  preceding  verse.  This  state  of  mind,  this  desire 
and  pursuit  of  carnal  things  is,  in  its  own  nature,  destructive.  It 
leads  to  all  the  scriptures  mean  by  death,  alienation  from  God, 
unholiness  and  misery. 

To  be  spiritually  minded.  A  spiritual  state  of  mind,  the 
desire  and  pursuit  of  spiritual  things  is,  in  its  own  nature,  life 
and  peace.  God  has  so  constituted  tlic  human  soul  that  the 
exercise  of  all  right  feelings  is  attended  with  happiness,  and  the 
exercise  of  evil  ones  with  misery.  To  be  entirely  sinful,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  entirely  miserable. 

,  (7)  The  ground  of  this  assertion  is,  that  God  is  the  end  and 
portion  of  the  soul.  To  be  sej)ai'atetl  from  him  is,  therefore, 
to  be  separated  from  all  that  is  suited  to  its  nature  and  capacity. 
But  a  carnal  state  docs  efiect  this  separation  from  God,  and  is, 
therefore,  destniclivc.     This  idea  Paul  expresses  by  saying. 


ROMANS  S:  1—11.  319 

Because  the  carnal  viind  is  enmity  against  God,  &c. 
The  words*  here  rendered  the  carnal  mind  are  the  same  as 
those  which,  in  v.  G,  are  rendered  to  be  carnally  m.inded;  of 
course  the  two  expressions  in  our  version  must  he  considered 
as  synonymous.  This  state  of  mind,  this  desire  and  pursuit  of 
carnal  thing  is  said  to  be  hostile  to  God.  This  may  be  under- 
stood, either,  as  though  Paul  employed  these  abstract  terms  for 
concrete  ones,  as  with  him  is  very  common,  and  then  the  sense 
would  be,  '  Those  wlio  are  thus  carnally  minded  are  opposed  to 
God,  i.  e.  are  not  subject  to  his  law  and  cannot  be.'t  Or  the 
abstract  terms  may  be  retained  in  their  proper  force,  and  then 
the  meaning  is,  '  The  desire  and  pursuit  of  the  things  of  the 
flesh  is  enmity  to  God.'  There  is  no  great  difference;  for 
when  we  say  that  sin  is  enmity  to  God,  we  at  the  same  time 
say  that  the  sinner  is  an  enemy  of  God.  The  latter  part  of  the 
verse,  (for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be),  which  is  explanatory  of  the  former,  is  rather  in 
favour  of  the  first  interpretation;  for  it  is  not  common  to 
speak  of  abstract  qualities  disobeying  the  law,  &c.  What  is 
here  said  of  the  "carnal  mind,"  is  said,  1  Cor.  2:  14,  of  the 
natural  man,  so  that  there  can  be  no  theological  point  gained  by 
denying  the  applicability  of  the  apostle's  language  here  to  the 
agent.  See  Rom.  7:18,  &c.  Gal.  5:17,  where  the  same  ina- 
bility is  asserted  even  of  the  regenerate.^ 

(8)  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  opposition  of  a  mind 
governed  by  the  flesh,  or  of  a  state  of  mind  resulting  from  the 
predominance  of  the  flesh  to  God  is,  that  those  who  are  in  this 
state  are  the  objects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  So  then  they 
tfiat  are  in  the  flesh  can7iot  jjlease  God.  To  be  m  the  fleshy 
as  before  remarked,  is  to  be  under  the  government  oi  ihe  flesh 
or  corrupt  nature,  to  be  destitute  of  the  grace  of  God.  It  is  an 
expression  applied  to  all  unrenewed  persons,  as  those  who  are 
not  in  the  flesh  are  in  the  Spirit. 

The  words  cannot  please  God  may  mean  either  cannot  do 
what  is  pleasing  to  God,  or  cannot  be  acceptable  to  him,  i.  e. 

*  To  (pPoviifxa  TTjs  tfa^xog. 

-j-  So  KopPE  and  Flatt. 

±  En  lihori  arbitrii  facultas  quam  satis  cvchere  sophistae  nequeunt.  Certe 
Paulus  disortis  verbis  liic  affirmat  quod  ipsi  plcno  ore  detestantur,  nobis  esse  iiuposs- 
bile  subjicere  legis  obedientiae  nostros  afll-ctus. — Calvih. 


320  •     ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

are  the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  The  latter  is  best  suited 
to  the  context,  as  all  that  is  said  in  vs.  7,  8  is  designed  to  show 
the  truth  of  the  declaration  in  v.  6,  "  to  be  carnally  minded  is 
death."  It  is  so,  because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God,  and,  therefore,  those  who  have  this  state  of  mind  are  hate- 
ful in  his  sight.  ■  But  to  be  the  object  of  the  divine  displeasure, 
is  to  be  miserable.  In  verses  9,  10,  11,  Paul  applies  to  the 
Romans  what  he  had  said  generally,  and  «hows  how  it  is  that, 
in  the  fullest  and  widest  sense,  "  to  be  spiritually  minded,"  or 
possessed  of  the  Spirit,  is  life  and  peace,  v.  6. 

(9)  But  ye  are  not  in  the  Jiesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so 
he  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  To  be  in  the  flesh  and 
in  the  Spirit  are  expressions  already  explained.  Paul  was 
persuaded  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote  were  renewed  or  spi- 
ritual persons;  yet  he  expresses  the  case  hypothetically,  '  Ye 
are  renewed,  if  so  be  ye  have  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  if  you 
have  not  that  Spirit  you  are  none  of  his.'  The  particle,*  how- 
ever, rendered  if  so  be,  sometimes  means  since.  If  this  sense 
'  of  the  word  be  adopted,  the  meaning  would  be,  '  Ye  are  spi- 
ritual, since  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  you,  for  if,  &c.'t  The 
latter  part  of  the  verse,  however,  favours  the  common  render- 
ing, as  it  assigns  the  reason  for  the  conditional  mode  of  expres- 
sion adopted  in  the  second  clause  of  the  verse. 

Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked, 
that  Spirit  of  God  cannot,  with  any  regard  to  the  usage  of 
scriptural  language,  be  explained  here  as  meaning  pious  feel- 
ings, mctonymically  called  Spirit,  because  produced  by  his 
agency.  The  expression  and  context  alike  show  that  it  must 
be  understood  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  God  is  said  to  dwell  where- 
ever  he  constantly  manifests  his  presence.  Hence,  he  dwelt  in 
the  tabernacle,  the  temple,  in  Zion,  &c.  In  the  New  Testament 
the  church  is  called  a  habitation  of  God,  Eph.  2 :  22,  &c.,  and 
individual  Christians  are  said  to  be  his  temple,  1  Cor.  3:16. 
6:19.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  Christians  is  spoken  of 
in  the  passages  referred  to,  and  in  many  others,  as  2  Tim.  1 :  14. 
2  Cor.  6:  16,  &c. 

Now  if  liny  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none 


*  EiVs^,  see  the  use  of  this  particle,  2  Thess.  1:  6. 
f  So  CnnrsosTOM,  Euasmus  and  Bkza. 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  321 

of  his.  It  is  evident  that  what  was  just  called  the  Spirit  of 
God,  is  here  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  see  Gal.  4:  6.  Phil.  1:19. 
1  Pet.  1 :  1 1 ;  of  course,  the  latter  phrase  cannot  mean  the  dis- 
position of  Christ,  but  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  1.  Because  possessed  by  Christ  without  mea- 
sure, John  3:  34.  Acts  10:  38.  Is.  42:  1,  &c.  2.  Because  he  is 
given  or  sent  by  Christ,  John  1:  33.  15:26.  16:  7.  Luke  24:49, 
&c.  &c.  How  exalted  must  have  been  Paul's  views  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  when  he,  in  one  breath,  calls  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  in  the  next,  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  how 
high  the  claims  of  the  Redeemer  himself,  who,  in  the  passages 
quoted,  claims  the  prerogative  of  sending  this  Spirit  to  whom- 
soever he  will. 

The  possession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  declared  to  be  absolutely 
necessary  to  our  being  Christians  or  acceptable  to  God,  be- 
cause that  Spirit  is  the  source  of  all  good.  To  be  destitute  of 
the  Spirit,  therefore,  is  to  be  destitute  of  every  thing  well- 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  "  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is 
Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  1  Cor.  12:  3. 

(10)  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because 
of  sin,  &c.  The  connexion  between  this  verse  and  the  pre- 
ceding is  better  seen  if  but  instead  of  and  is  used.*  '  If  any 
man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his,  but  if 
Christ  be  in  him,  then  he  is  a  partaker  of  the  life  of  which 
Christ  is  the  author,'  &c.  As  in  the  vs.  7,  8,  Paul  had  confirmed 
the  declaration  that  "  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death;"  he,  in  vs. 
10,  11,  illustrates  the  proposition,  that  "  to  be  spiritually  mind- 
ed is  life  and  peace." 

If  Christ  be  in  you  is  evidently  of  the  same  import  with 
the  preceding  expressions,  to  have  the  Spirit  of  Christ  and 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  us,  which  shows  that  the  man- 
ner in  which  Christ  dwells  in  his  people  is  by  the  commu- 
nication to  them  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  possession  of  this 
Spirit  is  a  pledge  of  life  in  its  fullest  sense,  even  to  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body.  Hence,  Paul  says,  "  the  body  is  dead, 
iiideed,  on  account  of  sin;  but  the  Spirit  is  life,  because 
of  righteousness;^^  that  is,  '  To  have  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
to  have  life,  for  although  the  body  is  destined  to  die  on  account 

*  In  the  Greek  the  word  is  6s. 
41 


322  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

of  sin,  still  the  soul  lives,  in  consequence  of  its  justification  and 
renovation,  and  even  our  mortal  bodies  are  hereafter  to  be  re- 
stored to  life  by  that  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  us,'  v.  11. 

The  body  is  dead  because  of  sin.  This  expression  and  the 
whole  verse  have  been  very  variously  explained;  some  under- 
standing them  of  a  spiritual,  and  others  of  a  temporal  death  and 
resurrection.  According  to  the  former  view,  body  is  understood 
as  equivalent  to  the  word^ei'A,*  signifying  corrupt  nature;  and 
death  means  devoid  of  jwiver ;  and  the  phrase  because  of  sin 
is  rendered  as  to  sin.  But  this  interpretation  does  violence  to 
usage  and  the  context.  Body  very  rarely,  if  ever,  has  the  sense 
thus  ascribed  to  it,  and  when  connected  with  the  word  dead,  it 
certainly  never  has.  In  the  very  next  verse,  too,  we  have  the 
words  mortal  bodies,  which  do  not  admit  of  being  understood 
figuratively.  The  meaning,  according  to  the  common  interpre- 
tation, is  natural  and  consistent  with  the  apostle's  object.  The 
body,  indeed,  is  dead,  i.  e.  must  die,  is  obnoxious  to  death,t 
(see  Wahl's  Lexicon  on  the  Greek  word  here  used).  The  body, 
indeed,  notwithstanding  the  indwelling  of  the  life-giving  Spirit, 
is  destined  to  death  on  account  of  sin.  Sin  is  the  cause  of  all 
infirmities  and  sorrows,  and,  finally,  of  the  dissolution  to  w^hich 
our  bodies  are  subject  in  this  world.  This  fact  is  inconsistent 
neither  with  our  being  in  favour  with  God,  nor  with  our  being 
partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from  two  con- 
siderations; first,  our  souls  already  participate  in  this  life;  and, 
secondly,  our  bodies  shall  be  raised  up  again,  and  share  forever 
in  that  blessedness  of  which  Christ  is  the  author.  The  former 
of  these  considerations  is  presented  in  the  next  clause  of  the 
verse,  but  the  Spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.  If 
body,  in  one  ])art  of  this  antithesis,  be  understood  of  the 
external  frame.  Spirit  must  mean  the  soul.  '  Though  the  body 
dies,  the  soul  lives.'      To  live  evidently  includes,  as  it  almost 

•  So  Calvin.  Porro  ante  admoniti  sunt  lectores  ne  per  vocabulum  Spiritns, 
animam  nostram  intelligant,  scd  regoncrationis  Spiritum;  qucm  Vitam  appellat 
Paulus,  non  modo  quia  vivit  et  viget  in  nobis,  sed  quia  vivificat  nos  suo  vigore, 
donee  extincta  mortali  carna  perfccto  dcmuni  ronovet :  sicut  e  convcrso  vox  Cor- 
poris, crassiorem  iilani  niassani  designat  quae  iiondum  fSj)iritu  Dei  est  purifieata  a 
sordibus  terrcnis,  quae  nihil  nisi  crassum  sapiunt,  nam  corpori  tribuerc  pcccati  cul- 
j)ani  alioqui  absurdum  esset. 

t  To  (PUG'S/  vsx^dv. — Arkian  in  Epict.  1.  3,  c.  10. 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  323 

uniformly  does  when  spoken  of  in  relation  to  the  results  of 
Christ's  work,  the  idea  of  a  holy  and  happy  existence  in  the 
favour  of  God.  The  soul  thus  lives  because  of  righteousness. 
From  the  opposition  of  this  word  to  sin,  in  the  other  clause, 
its  primary  reference  must  be  to  the  moral  renovation  of  the 
soul.  We  shall  continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  life  just 
spoken  of,  because  the  principles  of  this  new  and  immortal 
existence  are  implanted  within  us.  Regeneration  is  the  com- 
mencement of  eternal  life.  The  present  possession  of  the 
Spirit  is  an  earnest  of  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  Eph. 
1 :  14.  In  this  view  the  verse  is  directly  connected  with  the  main 
object  of  the  chapter,  viz.  the  security  of  all  who  are  in  Christ 
Jesus.  To  such  there  is  no  condemnation,  because  they  have 
been  freed  froi^  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death;  and 
because  the  work  of  salvation  is  already  begun  in  them.  They 
have  eternal  life,  John  6:  47.  Intimately  connected  with  this 
meaning  of  the  word  rendered  7'ighieoiisness  in  this  place, 
is  the  other  idea  which  the  word  expresses,  viz.  justification. 
The  soul  shall  live,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term,  because  it 
is  reconciled  to  God  and  regarded  of  him  as  righteous  for 
Christ's  sake.  Though  both  ideas  are  probably  to  be  included, 
the  former  is  the  more  prominent. 

(11)  But  if  the  Spirit  of  A/m  that  raised  up  Jesiis  from 
the  dead  dwell  in  you.  Such  paraphrases  for  God  as  that 
which  this  verse  contains,  are  very  common  with  the  apostle 
(see  Rom.  4:  24,  &c.),  and  are  peculiarly  appropriate  when  the 
force  of  the  argument,  in  some  measure,  rests  on  the  fact  to 
which  the  descriptive  phrase  refers.  Because  God  had  raised 
up  Christ,  there  was  ground  of  confidence  that  he  would  raise 
his  people  up  also.  Two  ideas  may  be  included  in  this  part  of 
the  verse;  first,  that  the  very  possession  of  that  Spirit,  which 
is  the  source  of  life,  is  a  pledge  and  security  that  our  bodies 
shall  rise  again;  because  it  would  be  unseemly  that  any  thing 
thus  honoured  by  the  Spirit,  should  remain  under  the  dominion 
of  death;  and,  secondly,  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secures 
the  resurrection  of  those  that  are  his,  according  to  Paul's  doc- 
trine in  1  Cor.  15:  23. 

He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  g^ncken 
your  mortal  bodies.  This  clause  cannot,  with  any  regard  to 
usage  or  the  context,  be  understood  of  a  moral  resurrection,  or 


324  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

deliverance  from  sin,  as  it  is  explained  by  Calvin  and  many 
others.     See  the  analogous  passage,  2  Cor.  4:  14. 

By  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you,  or,  as  it  must  be  ren- 
dered according  to  another  reading,  "  On  account^  of  his 
Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you.^^^  The  sense  in  either  case  is 
good.  According  to  the  former,  the  meaning  is,  that  the  resur- 
rection of  believers  will  be  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
of  God;  and  according  to  the  latter,  that  the  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit  is  the  ground  or  reason  why  the  bodies  of  believers 
should  not  be  left  in  the  grave.  The  internal  evidence  is 
decidedly  in  favour  of  the  first  reading.  1.  Because  Paul  uses 
precisely  these  words  elsewhere,  "  By  the  Holy  Spirit,  &c.," 
1  Tim.  1 :  14,  &c.  2.  Because  throughout  the  scriptures  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  what  God  does  in  i^^ture  or  grace, 
he  is  said  to  do  by  his  Spirit.  Passages  are  too  numerous  and 
too  familiar  to  be  cited.  3.  Because  the  Jews  seem  to  have 
referred  the  resurrection  of  the  body  specially  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.t  As  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided, 
the  case  must  be  considered  doubtful.  If  the  latter  reading  be 
adopted,  this  clause  would  then  answer  to  the  phrase  on  account 
of  righteousness  in  the  preceding  verse.  On  account  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  expressing  the  same  general  idea  under 
another  form.  Our  souls  shall  live'  in  happiness  and  glory 
because  they  arc  renewed,  and  our  bodies  too  shall  be  raised  up 
in  glory  because  they  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In 
the  widest  sense  then  is  it  true,  th»  to  be  in  the  Spirit,  is  to  be 
secure  of  life  and  peace. 

It  will  be  remarked,  that  in  this  verse,  and  elsewhere,  God  is 
said  to  have  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  whereas,  in  John 
10:  17, 18,  the  Saviour  claims  for  himself  the  power  of  resuming 
his  life.     So  here  (according  to  the  coinmon  reading)  we  are  said 

•  For  the  reading  with  the  accusative  ^ja  to  evoixoiJv  auTou  'r:vsu(xa,  Wetstein 
quotes  D.  E.  F.  G.  and  a  great  many  more  modern  MSS.,  the  Syriac  and  Latin 
Vulgate  versions,  and  several  of  the  fathers.  This  reading  is  approved  by 
Ekasmus,  Stephens,  Mill,  Bengkl,  GniEsiiACH,  and  Kxapp.  For  the  other 
form  5ia  tou  ^voixoCvtoj,  xtX.  are  quoted,  the  MSS,  A.  1 0,  22,  34,  38,  39 ;  the 
editions  of  ^'olinaeus,  Hf.za,  the  Complutcnsian,  and  a  great  many  of  the 
fathers.  ^Lachmann  agrees  with  the  received  text. 

■}-  Wetstei?!  quotes  such  passages  as  the  following,  from  the  Jewish  writers, 
"Tempore  future  Spiritus  meus  vivificabit  vos."  "Spiritus  Sanctus  est  causa 
rcburrcctionis  mortuorum,"  &c. 


ROMANS  8:  1—11.  325  . 

to  be  raised  up  by  tbe  Holy  Spirit;  in  John  6:  40,  Christ  says  of 
the  believer,  "/  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day;"  and  in 
2  Cor.  4:  14,  and  in  many  other  places,  the  resurrection  of 
believers  is  ascribed  to  God.  These  passages  belong  to  that 
numerous  class  of  texts  in  which  the  same  work  is  attributed  to 
the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  which,  in  con- 
nexion with  other  sources  of  proof,  show  conclusively  that 
"these  three  are  one;"  and  that  the  persons  of  the  Adorable 
Trinity  concur  in  all  works  ad  extra. 

Doctrines. 

1.  As  the  former  part  of  this  chapter  is  an  inference  from 
the  previous  discussion,  and  presents  a  summary  of  the  great 
truths  already  taught,  we  find  here  united  the  leading  doctrines 
of  the  first  portion  of  the  epistle.  For  example,  justification 
is  by  faith,  V.  1;  believers  are  not  under  the  law",  v.  2;  the  law 
is  insufficient  for  our  justification;  God  has  accomplished 
that  object  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son,  vs.  3,4;  and  this  blessing 
is  never  disconnected  with  a  holy  life,  v.  4. 

2.  The  final  salvation  of  those  who  are  really  united  to 
Christ,  and  who  show  the  reality  of  their  union  by  good  works, 
is  secure.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  chapter.  This 
section  contains  two  of  the  apostle's  arguments  in  its  support. 
1.  They  are  free  from  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death, 
vs.  2,  3,  4.  2.  They  are  partakers  of  that  Spirit  which  is  the 
author  and  earnest  of  eternal  life,  vs  5 — 11. 

3.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  divine.  He  is  "  God's  own  Son,"  i.  e. 
partaker  of  his  nature.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  his  Spirit,  and  he 
dwells  in  all  believers,  vs.  3,  11. 

4.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  a  man.  He  came  in  the  likeness  of 
men,  v.  3. 

5.  Christ  was  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  his  sufferings  were 
penal,  i.  e.  they  were  judicially  inflicted  in  support  of  the  law, 
'  God  punished  sin  in  him,'  V.  3. 

6.  The  justification  of  believers  involves  a  fulfilling  of  the 
law;  its  demands  are  not  set  aside,  v.  4. 

7.  Every  thing  jn  the  bible  is  opposed  to  antinomianism. 
Paul  teaches  that  justification  and  sanctification  cannot  be  dis- 
joined. No  one  is,  or  can  be  in  the  favour  of  God,  who  lives 
after  the  fle§h,  v§.  5 — 11. 


326  ROMANS  8:  1—11. 

S.  The  necessity  of  holiness  arises  out  of  the  very  nature  of 
things.  Sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is  life  and  peace.  God 
has  made  the  connexion  between  sin  and  misery,  holiness  and 
happiness,  necessary  and  immutable,  v.  6.  The  fact  that  holy 
men  suifer,  and  that  even  the  perfect  Saviour  was  a  man  of 
sorrows,  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine.  Such  sufferings 
never  proceed  from  holiness.  On  the  contrary,  the  divine 
Spirit  was,  and  is  a  well-spring  within  of  joy  and  peace,  to  all 
who  are  sanctified.  In  itself  considered,  therefore,  moral  purity 
is  essentially  connected  with  happiness,  as  cause  and  effect. 

9.  All  unrenewed  men,  that  is,  all  "who  are  in  the  flesh," 
are  at  once  the  enemies  of  God  and  the  objects  of  his  displeasure. 
Their  habitual  and  characteristic  state  of  mind,  that  state  which 
every  man  has  who  is  not  "  in  the  Spirit,"  is  enmity  to  God, 
and  consequently  is  the  object  of  his  disapprobation,  vs.  6,  8. 

10.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  source  of  all  good  in  man.  Those 
who  are  destitute  of  his  influences  are  not  subject  to  the  law  of 
God,  neither  indeed  can  be;  for  no  man  can  call  Jesus  Lord, 
that  is,  can  really  recognise  his  authority,  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  vs.  5 — 8. 

11.  Death  and  the  other  evils,  to  which  believers  are  exposed, 
are  on  account  of  sin,  v,  10.  They  arc  no  longer,  however, 
the  evidences  of  God's  displeasure,  but  of  his  parental  love; 
Heb.  12:  6. 

12.  The  redemption  of  Christ  extends  to  the  bodies  as  well 
as  the  souls  of  his  people,  v.  11. 

Remarks. 

1.  There  can  be  no  safety,  no  holiness,  and  no  happiness  to 
those  who  are  out  of  Christ.  No  safety,  because  all  such  are 
under  the  condemnation  of  the  law,  vs.  1,  2,  3;  no  holiness, 
because  only  such  as  are  united  to  Christ  have  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  V.  9 ;  and  no  happiness,  because  "  to  be  carnally  minded 
is  death,"  v.  6.  Hence  those  who  are  in  Christ,  should  be  very 
humble,  seeing  they  are  nothing,  and  he  is  every  thing;  very 
grateful,  and  very  holy.  And  those  who  are  out  of  Christ 
should  at  once  go  to  him,  that  they  may  attain  safety,  holiness 
and  happiness. 

2;-The  liberty  where'with  Christ  has  made  his  people  free,  is 
a  liberty  from  the  law  and  from  sin,  vs.  2,  5.     A  legal  spirit 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  327 

and  an  unholy  life  are  alike  inconsistent  with  the  Christian 
character. 

3.  Believers  should  be  joyful  and  confident;  for  the  law  is 
fulfilled;  its  demands  are  satisfied  as  respects  them.  Who  then 
can  condemn,  if  God  has  justified  }  v.  4. 

4.  There  can  be  no  rational  or  scriptural  hope  without  holi- 
ness, and  every  tendency  to  separate  the  evidence  of  the  divine 
favour  from  the  evidence  of  true  piety  is  anti-christian  and 
destructive,  vs.  4 — 8. 

5.  The  bent  of  the  thoughts,  affections  and  pursuits  is  the 
only  decisive  test  of  character.  "  They  who  are  after  the  flesh 
do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,  &c."  v.  5. 

6.  It  is,  therefore,  a  sure  mark  of  hypocrisy,  if  a  man,  who  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  Christian,  still  minds  earthly  things,  that  is,  has  his 
affections  and  efforts  supremely  directed  towards  worldly  objects. 

7.  We  may  as  well  attempt  to  wring  pleasure  out  of  pain,  as 
to  unite  the  indulgence  of  sin  with  the  enjoyment  of  happiness, 
vs.  6,  7. 

8.  How  blinded  must  those  be,  who,  although  at  enmity  with 
God,  and  the  objects  of  his  displeasure,  are  sensible  neither  of 
their  guilt  nor  danger!  vs.  7,  8. 

9.  The  great  distinction  of  a  true  Christian,  is  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  his  dignity,  holiness  and  happiness, 
vs.  9—11. 

10.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  the  Christian,  how  careful 
should  he  be  lest  any  thing  in  his  thoughts  or  feelings  should 
be  offensive  to  this  divine  guest! 

11.  Christians  are  bound  to  reverence  their  bodies  and  pre- 
serve them  from  all  defilement,  because  they  are  the  members 
of  Christ,  and  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  v.  11. 


CHAP.  8:  12—28. 

Analysis. 
This  section*  contains  two  additional  arguments  in  support 
of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter,  the  safety  of  all  who  are  in 

*  It  was  remarked  above,  that  the  division  of  tliis  chapter  into  sections  is  merely 
arbitrary.  For  although  there  are  several  very  distinct  topics  introduced,  yet  the 
whole  is  intimately  interwoven  and  made  to  bear  on  one  point.     In  passing  too 


328  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

Christ.  The  first  is  derived  from  their  adoption,  vs.  12 — 17, 
and  the  second  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  sustained  by  hope 
and  aided  by  the  Spirit  under  all  their  trials;  so  that  every 
thing  eventually  works  together  for  their  good,  vs.  18 — 28.    * 

Paul  had  just  shown  that  believers  were  distinguished  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  he  infers  the  obligation^  live 
according  to  the  Spirit,  and  to  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  oody, 
V.  12.  If  they  did  this  they  should  live,  v.  13.  Not  only 
because,  as  previously  argued,  the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  life,  but 
also  because  all  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are  the  children  of 
God.  This  is  a  new  ground  of  security,  v.  14.  The  ideality  of 
their  adoption  is  proved,  first,  by  their  own  filial  feelings;  as 
God's  relation  and  feelings  towards  us,  are  always  the  counter- 
part of  ours  towards  him,  v.  15.  Secondly,  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  itself  with  our  spirits,  v.  16.  If  children,  the 
inference  is  plain  that  believers  shall  be  saved,  for  they  are 
heirs.  Salvation  follows  adoption,  as,  among  men,  heirship  does 
sonship.     They  are  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ,  v.  17. 

It  is  nowise  inconsistent  with  their  filial  relation  to  God,  nor 
with  their  safety,  that  believers  are  allowed  to  sufier  in  this 
world;  1.  Because  these  sufferings  are  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant, vs.  18 — 23.  2.  Because  they  are  sustained  by  hope. 
3.  Because  the  Spirit  itself  intercedes  for  them.  In  amplifying 
the  first  of  these  considerations,  the  comparative  insignificancy 
of  the  sufferings  of  this  present  state,  the  apostle  presents  in 
contrast  the  unspeakable  blessedness  and  glory  which  are  in 
reserve  for  believers,  v.  IS.  To  elevate  our  conceptions  of  this 
glory,  he  represents,  1.  The  whole  creation  as  looking  and 
longing  for  its  full  manifestation,  v.  19,  &c.  2.  All  those  who 
have  now  a  foretaste  of  this  blessedness,  or  the  first  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  as  joining  in  this  sense  of  present  wretchedness  and 
earnest  desire  of  the  future  good,  v.  23. 

These  afflictions  then  are  not  only  thus  comparatively  light 
in  themselves,  but  they  are  made  still  more  tolerable,  by  the  con- 
stant and  elevating  anticipation  of  the  future  inheritance  of  the 

from  one  argument  to  another,  the  apostle  does  it  so  naturally,  that  there  is  no 
abruptness  of  transition.  The  connexion,  therefore,  between  the  last  verse  of  the 
])rcceclinK  section  and  the  first  verse  of  this,  and  between  the  last  of  this,  and  the 
first  of  the  followinji,  is  exceedingly  intimate.  It  is  only  for  the  sake  of  convenient 
resting  jjlaccs  for  review,  that  the  division  is  made. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  329 

saints,  vs.  24,  25.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  Spirit  also  sustains 
us  ]jy  his  intercessions,  thus  securing  for  us  all  the  good  we 
need,  vs.  26 — 28.  The  salvation,  then,  of  believers  is  secure, 
notwithstanding  their  sufferings,  inasmuch  as  they  are  children, 
and  are  sustained  and  aided  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Comvientary. 

(12)  Therefore,  brethren,  lue  are  debtors,  not  to  the  flesh 
to  live  after  the  flesh.  We  have  here  an  example  of  what  the 
rhetoricians  call  yneiosis,  where  less  is  said  than  is  intended. 
So  far  from  being  debtors  to  the  flesh,  the  very  reverse  is  the 
case.  This  passage  is  an  inference  from  the  exhibition  of  the 
nature  and  tendency  of  the  flesh,  or  the  carnal  mind,  as  hostile 
to  God  and  destructive  to  ourselves,  vs.  5,  8.  As  this  is  its 
nature,  and  believers  are  no  longer  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit, 
the}'  are  under  the  strongest  obligations  not  to  live  after  the 
one,  but  after  the  other. 

(13)  The  necessity  of  thus  living  is  enforced  liy  a  repetition 
of  the  sentiment  of  v.  fi.  To  live  after  the  flesh  is  death;  to 
live  after  the  Spirit  is  life.  For  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye 
shall  die;  but  if  ye  through  the  Spirit,  &c.  The  necessity 
of  holiness,  therefore,  is  absolute.  No  matter  what  professions 
we  may  make,  or  what  hopes  we  may  indulge,  justification  or 
the  manifestation  of  the  divine  favour  is  never  separated  from 
sanctification.  Ye  shall  die  in  the  comprehensive  scriptui^al 
sense  of  that  word,  Rom.  6:  21,  23;  see  Gal.  6:  8.  But  if  ye 
through  the  Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall 
live.  The  use  of  the  word  mortify,  to  put  to  death  or  destroy, 
seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  context.  Ye  shall  die, 
unless  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  cf  the  body;  see  Col.  3:  5. 
The  destruction  of  sin  is  a  slow  and  painful  process. 

Deeds  of  the  body.*  It  is  commonly  said  that  body  is  here 
equivalent  with  flesh,  and,  therefore,  signifies  corruption.  But 
it  is  very  much  to  be  doubted  whether  the  word  ever  has  this 
sense  in  the  New  Testament.  The  passages  commonly  quoted 
in  its  behalf,   Rom.  6:6.  7:  24.  8:  10,  13,  are  very  far  from 

*  Instead  of  rfwfJiaTo^,  D.  E.  F.  G.,  tlie  Vulgate  and  many  of  the  early  writers 
have  dapxos,  which  Bengel  and  Griesbach  approve.  Although  this  reading 
looks  like  a  gloss,  it  has  much  in  its  favour  from  the  weight  of  these  MSS.,  and 
the  usual  mode  of  speaking  of  this  apostle. 

42 


830  ROMANS  8:  12—28-. 

being  decisive.  If  the  common  reading,  therefore,  is  to  be 
retained  (see  note),  it  is  better  to  take  the  word  in  its  literal  and 
usual  sense.  The  deeds  of  the  body  is  then  a  metonymical 
expression  for  sinful  deeds  in  general;  a  part  being  put  for  the 
whole.  Deeds  performed  by  the  body,  being,  by  implication, 
taken  for  evil  deeds. 

The  destruction  of  sin  is  to  be  effected  through  the  Spirit, 
which  does  not  mean  the  renewed  feelings  of  the  heart,  but,  as 
uniformly  throughout  the  passage,  the  Holy  Spirit  which  dwells 
in  believers;  see  v.  14,  where  this  Spirit  is  called  "Spirit  of 
God."  Ye  shall  live,  i.  e.  enjoy  the  life  of  which  the  Spirit 
is  the  author;  including,  therefore,  holiness,  happiness  and  eter- 
nal glory. 

(14)  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  the  sons  of  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  all  such  shall 
live;  that  is,  a  new  argument  is  thus  introduced  in  support  of 
the  leading  doctrine  of  the  chapter.  Believers  shall  enjoy 
eternal  life,  not  only  because  they  have  the  Spirit  of  life,  but 
because  they  are  the  sons  of  God.  To  be  led  by  the  Spirit 
and  to  walk  after  the  Spirit,  present  the  same  idea,  viz.  to  be 
under  the  government  of  the  Spirit,  under  two  different  aspects, 
Gal.  5:  18.  2  Pet.  1:  21.  The  former  phrase  refers  to  the  con- 
stant and  effectual  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regulating 
the  thoughts,  feelings  and  conduct  of  believers.  Are  the  sons 
of  God.  The  term  son,  in  such  connexions,  expresses  mainly 
one  or  the  other  of  three  ideas,  and  sometimes  all  of  them 
united.  1.  Similarity  of  disposition,  character  or  nature;  Matt. 
5:  9,45,  "That  ye  may  be  the  children  (Gr.  sons)  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven."  So,  too,  "  sons  of  Abraham"  are 
those  who  are  like  Abraham;  and  "  children  of  the  devil"  are 
those  who  are  like  the  devil.  2.  Objects  of  peculiar  affec- 
tion. Rom.  9:  26,  Those  who  were  not  my  people,  "  shall  be 
called  sons  of  the  living  God;"  2  Cor.  6:  18,  "Ye  shall  be  my 
sons  and  daughters  saith  the  Lord  Almighty."  So  frequently 
elsewhere.  3.  Those  who  have  a  title  to  some  peculiar  dignity 
or  advantage.  Thus  the  "  sons  of  Abraham"  are  those  who 
are  heirs  with  Abraham  of  the  same  promise.  Gal.  3:  8,  seq. 
John  1 :  12.  1  John  3:  2,  "  Beloved  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God, 
and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,  &c."  The  term 
may  indeed  express  any  one  of  the  various  relations  in  wiiich 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  331 

children  stand  to  their  parents,  as  derived  from  them,  dependent 
on  them,  &c.  &c.  The  above,  however,  are  the  most  common 
of  its  meanings.  In  this  passage  the  first  and  third  ideas  ap- 
pear specially  intended.  'Believers  shall  live,  because  they 
are  the  peculiar  objects  of  the  divine  affection,  and  are  heirs  of 
his  kingdom,'  vs.  15,  16.  That  those  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit 
are  really  the  sons  of  God,  appears  from  their  own  filial  feel- 
ings, and  from  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit. 

For  ye  have  not  received  the  Spirit  of  bondage  again  to 
fear,  hut  ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  &c.  That 
is,  '  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  you  have  received,  does  not  pro- 
duce a  slavish  and  anxious  state  of  mind,  such  as  those  experi- 
ence who  are  under  the  law;  but  it  produces  the  filial  feelings 
of  affection,  reverence  and  confidence,  and  enables  us,  out  of 
the  fulness  of  our  hearts,  to  call  God  our  Father.' 

The  phrase,  the  spirit  of  bondage,  may  mean  a  feeling 
or  sense  of  bondage,  as  "spirit  of  meekness,"  1  Cor.  4:  21, 
may  mean  meekness  itself;  and  "  spirit  of  fear,"  2  Tim. 
1 :  7,  fear  itself.  This  use  of  the  word  spirit  is  not  uncommon. 
Or  it  may  mean  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  author  of  bondage. 
*  Believers  have  not  received  a  spirit  which  produces  slavish 
feelings,  but  the  reverse.'  The  context  is  decidedly  in  favour 
of  this  view:  because  Paul  has  been  speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  dwelling  in  Christians.  This  Spirit  is  that  which  they  have 
received,  and  is  the  author  of  their  characteristic  feelings.  In 
the  words  again  to  fear  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the 
state  of  believers  prior  to  the  reception  of  the  Spirit.  It  was 
a  state  of  bondage  in  which  they  feared,  i.  e.  were  governed  by 
a  slavish  and  anxious  apprehension  of  punishment.  In  this 
state  are  all  unconverted  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  be- 
cause they  are  all  under  the  law,  or  the  bondage  of  a  legal 
system. 

Spirit  of  adoption;  the  spirit  which  produces  the  feelings 
which  children  have.  Adoption  is  for  sonship.  By  luhich  ive 
cry,  Abba  Father,  i.  e.  which  enables  us  to  address  God  as 
our  Father.  Abba  is  the  Syriac  and  Chaldee  form  of  the  He- 
brew word  for  father,  and,  therefore,  was  to  the  apostle  the 
most  familiar  term.  As  such,  it  would  doubtless,  more  natu- 
rally and  fully,  express  his  filial  feeling  towards  God,  than  the 
foreign  Greek  word.     It  is  rare,  indeed,  that  any  other  than 


332  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

our  mother  tongue  becomes  so  inwoven  with  our  thouglit?? 
and  feelings,  as  to  come  up  spontaneously  when  our  hearts  are 
overflowing.  Hence,  expressions  of  tenderness  are  the  last 
words  of  their  native  language  which  foreigners  give  up,  and 
in  times  of  excitement  and  even  delirium,  they  are  sure  to 
come  back.  Paul,  therefore,  chose  to  call  God  his  Father,  in 
his  own  familiar  tongue.  Having  used  the  one  word,  however, 
the  Greek,  of  course,  became  necessary  for  those  to  whom  he 
was  writing.  The  repetition  of  two  synonymes  may,  how- 
ever, be  employed  to  give  fuller  utterance  to  his  feeling.  It  is 
a  very  common  opinion  that  Paul  used  both  words,  to  intimate 
that  all  distinction  between  different  nations  was  now  done 
away.*  The  preceding  explanation  seems  more  natural  and 
satisfactory. 

(16)  The.  Spirit  itself  beareth  ivitness  with  our  spirit, 
tliat  we  are  tlie  children  of  God.  'Not  only  do  our  own  filinl 
feelings  towards  God  prove  that  we  are  his  children,  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  itself  conveys  to  our  souls  the  assurance  of  this 
delightful  Aict' 

The  Spirit  itsc/f'is,  of  course,  the  Holy  Spirit,  1.  Because 
of  the  obvious  distinction  between  it  and  our  spitnt.  2.  Be- 
cause of  the  use  of  the  word  throughout  the  passage;  and 
3,  Because  of  the  analogy  to  other  texts  which  cannot  be  other- 
wise explained.  Gal,  4:  6,  "  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of 
his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba  Father;"  Rom,  5:  5, 
"  The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  given  unto  us,'^  &.c. 

Bearetli  icitness  with  our  spirit,  that  is,  '  beareth  Avitness, 
together  with  our  own  filial  feelings,  to  our  spirit,'!  Although 
it  is  very  common  for  compound  verbs  to  have  the  same  force 
Avith  the  simple  ones,  yet,  in  this  case,  the  context  re(|uires  the 
force  of  the  ])reposition  to  be  retained,  as  two  distinct  sources 
of  confidence  as  here  mentioned,  one  in  v.  15,  the  other  in  this 
verse.  Beareth  tuifness  to,  means  co)ifn'77is  or  assures.  '  The 
Spirit  of  God  produces  in  our  spirit  the  assurance  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God.'     How  this  is  done,  we  cannot  fully  un- 

*  Significat  enini  Pauliis,  ita  nunc  jkt  lotum  munJiun  publicatam  esse  Dei 
misericortliam,  ut  proniiscue  linsuis  omnibus  invocctur  :  queniadnioduni  Augusti- 
nus  ohservat.     Ergo  inter  omnes  gentes  consensum  cxpriniere  voluit. — Calvin. 

f  The  Greek  is  tfujAfia^Tu^sr  tw  "ffvgu/xaTi  -/)fji.wv. 


ROMANS  S:  12—28.  333 

tlersland,  an^^^iore  than  we  can  understand  the  mode  in  which 
iie  produces  any  other  effect  in  our  mind.  The  fact  is  clearly 
asserted  here  as  well  as  in  other  passages.  See  Rom.  5:  5, 
where  the  conviction  that  we  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of 
God,  is  said  to  he  produced  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  given 
unto  us."  See  2  Cor.  1:  22.  5:  5.  Eph.  1:  13.  4:  30;  and  in 
1  Cor.  2:4,  5,  and  1  John  2:  20,  27,  and  other  passages,  the 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is,  in  like  manner,  attri- 
buted to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(17)  *^nd  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  God  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ,  &c.  This  is  the  inference  from  our  adop- 
tion in  favour  of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter,  the  safety  of 
believers.  If  the  children  of  God,  they  shall  become  partakers 
of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  The  words  to  inherit, 
heirs  and  inheritance,  are  all  of  them  used  in  a  general  sense  in 
the  scriptures,  in  reference  to  the  secure  possession  of  any  good, 
without  regard  to  the  mode  in  which  that  possession  is  obtained. 
They  are  favourite  terms  with  the  sacred  writers,  because  pos- 
session by  inheritance  was  much  more  secure  than  that  obtained 
by  purchase  or  by  any  other  method.  There  are  tliree  ideas  in- 
cluded in  these  words  accessory  to  that  which  constitutes  their 
prominent  meaning;  the  right,  the  certainty  and  the  unalienable 
character  of  the  possession.  Hence,  when  the  apostle  says, 
believers  are  the  heirs  of  God,  he  means  to  recognize  their  title, 
in  and  through  the  Redeemer,  to  the  promised  good,  as  well  as 
the  certainty  and  security  of  the  possession.  "  And  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise,"  Gal.  3:  29.  In  Gal.  4:  7,  we  have  the  same 
argument  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  "  Wherefore  thou  art  no 
more  a  servant  but  a  son;  and  if  a  son,  then  an  heir  of  God 
through  Christ;"  see  Col,  3:  24.  Heb.  9:  15.  Eph.  1:  14,  &c. 
Joint  lieirs  with  Christ.  These  words  are  intended  to  desig- 
nate the  inheritance  which  believers  are  to  receive.  It  is  not 
any  possession  in  this  world,  but  it  is  that  good  of  which  Christ 
himself  is  the  recipient;  we  are  to  be  partakers  of  his  inheri- 
tance. This  idea  is  frequently  presented  in  the  scriptures. 
"Enter  3'e  into  the  joy  of  your  Lord,"  Matt.  25:  21;  "That 
ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,"  Luke 
22:  30;  '•  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit  with  me 
in  my  throne,  &c."  Rev.  3:21,  and  in  many  other  places. 


334  ROMANS  S:  12—28. 

//  .50  he  that  we  suffer  ivith  him,  that  we  may  also  be 
glorified  together.  That,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
clause,  expresses  merely  the  result.  '  If  we  suffer,  then  also 
shall  we  be  glorified.'  The  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  in 
suffering  as  well  as  in  glory,  is  what  he  and  his  apostles  taught 
them  to  expect.  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me.  Matt. 
16:  24;  "If  we  be  dead  with  him,  we  shall  also  live  with 
him.  If  we  suffer,  we  shall  also  reign  with  him,^^  2  Tim.  2: 
11,  12.  The  blessedness  of  the  future  state  is  always  repre- 
sented as  exalted;  it  is  a  glory,  something  that  will  elevate  us 
in  the  rank  of  beings,  enlarging,  purifying  and  ennobling  all 
our  faculties.  To  this  state  we  are  to  attain  "  through  much 
tribulation,"  i.  e.  attain  it  as  Christ  did.  And  this  is  what  the 
apostle  here  intends  to  say,  and  not  that  the  participation  of 
Christ's  glory,  is  a  reward  for  our  having  suffered  with  him.* 

(18)  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  ])resent  time 
are  not  loorthy  to  he  compared,  &c.  '  If  children,  then  heirs, 
for  I  do  not  think  our  present  sufferings  inconsistent  with  our 
being  either  the  children  or  heirs  of  God.  1.  Because  they 
are  comparatively  insignificant,  vs.  18 — 23;  and  2.  Because  we 
are  sustained  under  them,  vs.  24 — 28.'  Without  much  altering 
the  sense,  the  for  may  be  considered  as  referring  to  the  last 
clause  of  the  preceding  verse.  '  We  shall  be  glorified  with 
Christ,  for  these  present  afflictions  are  not  worthy  of  thought.' 
In  2  Cor.  4:17,  Paul  speaks  much  in  the  same  manner  of  the 
lightness  of  the  afflictions  of  this  life  in  comparison  with  the 
glory  that  shall  he  revealed  in  us.  We  are  not  only  the  re- 
cipients of  a  great  favour,  but  the  subjects  in  which  a  great  dis- 
play of  the  divine  glory  is  to  be  made  to  others,  Eph.  3:10. 
It  is  a  revelation  of  glory  in  us;  see  Col.  3:4.   1  John  3:  2. 

The  apostle,  fired  with  the  thought  of  the  future  glory  of  the 
saints,  pours  forth  the  splenditl  passage  which  follows  (vs. 
19 — 23),  in  which  he  represents  tlie  whole  creation  groaning 
under  its  present  degradation,  and  looking  and  longing  for  the 
revelation  of  this  glory  as  the  end  and  consummation  of  its 
existence. 


•  Nos  Christi  cohcrcdes  cbrp,  moilo  ad  ccrncndam  hcreditatcni  cadom,  qua  ipse 
via  progressus  est,  ipsum  scquamur. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  335 

(19)  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature  waiteth 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God.  This  and  the 
following  verses  are  evidently  intended  to  exalt  our  conceptions 
of  the  future  glory  of  the  children  of  God,  in  order  to  illustrate 
the  truth  of  the  declaration,  that,  in  comparison  with  that  glory, 
the  evils  of  the  present  state  are  not  worthy  of  a  thought.  The 
earnest  expectation.  This  is  a  strong  expression.  The  Greek 
word  is  etymologically  expressive  of  the  gesture  of  expectation, 
a  looking  with  outstretched  neck.*  Whatever  may  be  the  use 
of  the  word  in  some  other  places,  it  is  evidently  used  here  with 
emphasis,  and  is,  therefore,  properly  rendered  an  earnest  ex- 
pectation. 

What  is  meant  in  this  passage  by  the  creature,  and  afterwards 
by  the  ivhole  creation,  is  a  very  difficult  question.  As  the  usage 
of  the  term  admits  of  various  interpretations,  the  decision  of  the 
point  must  rest  on  the  context.  With  which  well  authorized  sense 
of  the  word  rendered  creature  (xtiVis)  will  the  context  best  agree  ? 
To  answer  this  question  we  must  know  what  the  context  means. 
It  will,  therefore,  be  better  to  defer  any  remarks  on  this  point, 
until  after  the  examination  of  the  few  next  succeeding  verses. 

The  first  thing  asserted  of  this  creature  is,  that  it  waits  for 
the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God.  That  is,  for  the  time 
when  they  shall  be  manifested  in  their  true  character  and  glory 
as  his  sons.  "Beloved  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God;  and  it 
doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be;  but  we  know  that,  when 
he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him,"  1  John  3:2.  The  period 
thus  designated  is  one  for  which  the  whole  creation  longs,  be- 
cause it  is  to  share  in  the  glory  then  to  be  revealed.  From  this 
verse,  and  from  v.  23,  it  is  plain  that  the  creation  and  sons  of 
God  are  distinct. 

(20)  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  &c. 
There  are  in  this  verse  three  reasons  expressed  or  implied,  why. 
the  creature  thus  waits  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God. 
The  first  is,  that  it  is  now  in  a  miserable  condition,  "  subject  to 
vanity."  2.  That  this  subjection  was  not  voluntary,  but  im- 
posed by  God.     3.  That  it  was  never  designed  to  be  final. 

The  creature  is  subject  to  vanity.  As  remarked  al)ove  (ch. 
1:  21),  vanity  and  wickedness  are  very  nearly  associated  ideas 

'A?roxaga5oxi'a  from  xa^a^oxs'w,  capite  erecto  specto. 


336  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

in  the  scripture;  vain  or  foolish  being  often  synonymous  Avith 
corrupt  or  ivicked*  Vanity ,  therefore,  is  interchanged  with 
corruption  in  the  next  verse,  and  expresses  both  the  ideas  of 
fraiJty  (corruption),  and  consequently  misery.  It  is  the  opposite 
of  the  glorious  state  expected,  and,  therefore,  expresses  every 
thing  which  distinguishes  unfavourably  the  present  from  the 
glorious  future.  To  this  state  the  creature  was  made  subject, 
not  willins^ly,  but  by  reason  of  hint  loho  hath  subjected  the 
same  in  hope.  Not  tvillingly,  i.  e.  not  of  its  own  accord. 
The  state  of  corruption  is  one  to  which  it  was  loth  to  be  made 
subject,  and  from  which  it  would  fain  be  delivered.  Or,  not  by 
its  own  free  act,  but  the  act  of  another.  Which  idea  should  be 
preferred  depends  on  the  manner  in  which  the  next  clause  is 
understood. 

By  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected  A  The  original  may 
mean  either,  on  account  of  him.)  &c.,  or  by  him.  If  the  former 
rendering  be  preferred,  the  passage  means,  '  The  creature  was 
made  subject  to  its  present  degraded  condition,  not  from  any 
fondness  for  it,  but  out  of  regard  to  the  authority  of  God.' J  If 
the  latter  meaning  is,  '  This  subjection  was  not  the  result  of  the 
voluntary  act  of  the  creature,  but  was  effected  by  God.'  The 
former  is  best  suited  to  the  usual  force  of  the  preposition  here 
used,  when  connected  with  the  accusative,  but  the  latter  gives 
the  better  sense;  and  is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  the  use 
of  the  preposition  in  question  (John  6:  57.  15:3,  &c.;  see  Wahl), 
and  is,  therefore,  to  be  preferred.  The  words  in  hope  may  be 
connected  either  with  the  immediately  preceding  clause,  God 
hath  subjected  it  in  hope;  or  with  the  previous  member  of  the 
sentence,  '  l^he  creature  ivas  made  sulrject  to  vanity  (not 
voluntarily,  but  by  God)  in  hope.'  That  is,  the  subjection  was 
not  hopelcss;§  see  Acts  2:  26.  The  latter  mode  is  much  to  be 
preferred  on  account  of  the  following  verse. 

*  "  I  have  not  sat  with  vaiii  persons,"  Ps.  26 :  4.  "  Vanity  of  vanities,  all  is 
vanity,"  Eccl.  1:2.     "  In  the  vanity  ol'  their  minds,"  Eph.  4:  17. 

t  Aia  Toy  ucro-TagavTa. 

I  Obedicntia  cxempliini  in  crcaturis  omnibus  proponit,et  eam  addit  ex  spe  nasci, 
quia  hine,  soli  et  lunae,  stciliscpieomniljus  ad  iissiihumi  eursum  alacritas  :  hinc  terrae 
ad  fructus  gigncndos  scdulitas  obsequii,  liinc  aeris  indcfessa  agitatio,  hinc  aquis  ad 
fluxum  promptus  vigor,  quia  Dcus  suas  quibusque  pai-tes  injunxit,  &c. — Calvix. 

§  Subinittit  se  jugo,  hac  tiuncn  spe,  fore,  ut  ct  ipsa  liberetur  tandem  ab  eo. — 
Kurp£. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  387 

(21)  Because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption,  &c.  This  verse,  according  to  our 
version,  assigns  the  reason  why  the  subjection  of  the  creature 
was  not  hopeless.  This  reason  is,  that  the  creature  was  to  share 
in  the  glorious  redemption.  The  particle,  however,  rendered 
because,  may  be  rendered  that,  and  the  verse  then  indicates  the 
object  of  the  hope  just  spoken  of.  The  subjection  was  with  the 
hope  that  the  creature  should  be  delivered.  In  either  way  the 
sense  is  nearly  the  same.  The  creature  itself  also  is  another 
of  the  forms  of  expression  which  show  that  Paul  speaks  of  the 
creation  in  a  sense  which  does  not  embrace  the  children  of  God. 
Bondage  of  corruption,  i.  e.  bondage  to  corruption.  The 
state  of  frailty  and  degradation  spoken  of  above. 

Delivered,  or  liberated  into  the  liberty,  is  an  elliptical  form 
of  expression  for  '  Delivered  and  introduced  into  the  liberty.* 
Liberty  of  glory,  as  the  words  literally  mean,  or  glorious 
liberty,  refer  to  that  liberty  which  consists  in,  or  is  connected 
with  the  glory  which  is  the  end  and  consummation  of  the  work 
of  redemption.  This  word  often  is  used  for  the  whole  of  the 
results  of  the  work  of  Christ  as  far  as  his  people  are  concerned. 
(See  V.  18.)  The  creature  then  is  to  be  a  partaker  in  some  way, 
according  to  its  nature,  of  the  glories  in  reserve  for  the  sons  of 
God.* 

(22)  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now.  This  verse  is  a  repe- 
tition and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  sentiment.  'The  crea- 
ture is  subject  to  vanity  and  longs  for  deliverance;  for  we  see 
from  universal  and  long  continued  experience  the  whole  crea- 
tion groaning  and  travailing  in  pain.'  It  is,  however,  as  Calvin 
remarks,  the  pains  of  birth,  and  not  of  death.  After  sorrow 
comes  the  joy  of  a  new  existence.  The  word  together  may 
have  reference  to  the  ivhole  creation  which  groans  together, 

*  Porro  non  intelligit,  consortes  ejusdem  gloriae  fore  creaturas  cum  filiis  Dei,  sed 
suo  modo  melioris  status  fore  socias:  quia  Deus  simul  cum  humano  genere  orbem 
nunc  collapsum  in  integrum  restituet.  Qualis  vero  futura  sit  integritas  ilia  tam  in 
pecudibus  quam  in  plantis  et  metallis,  curiosius  inquirere  neque  expedit,  neque 
fas  est.  Quia  praecipua  pars  corruptionis  est  interitus :  Quaerunt  arguti,  sed  parum 
sobrii  homines,  an  immortale  futurum  sit  omne  animalium  genus  :  his  speculationi- 
bus  si  frenum  laxetur,  quorsum  tandem  nos  abripient  ?  Hac  ergo  simplici  doctrina 
contenti  simus,  tale  fore  temperamentum,  et  tam  concinnum  ordinem,  ut  nihil  vel 
deforme  vel  liuxum  appareat. — Calvix. 

43 


338  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

all  its  parts  uniting  and  sympathizing;  or  it  may  refer  to  the 
sons  of  God, '  For  the  whole  creation  groans  together  with  the 
sons  of  God.'  On  account  of  the  following  verse,  in  which 
Christians  are  specially  introduced  as  joining  with  the  whole 
creation  in  this  sense  of  present  misery  and  desire  of  future 
good,  the  former  method  of  understanding  the  passage  seems 
preferable.  Until  now,  from  the  beginning  until  the  present 
time.  The  creature  has  always  been  looking  forward  to  the 
day  of  redemption.* 

(23)  ^nd  not  only  so,  but  ourselves  also,  loho  have  the 
first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  &c.  '  Not  only  does  the  whole 
creation  thus  groan,  but  we  ourselv^es,  we  Christians,  who  have 
a  foretaste  of  heavenly  bliss,  the  first  fruits  of  the  glorious 
inheritance,  we  groan  within  ourselves,  and  long  for  the  con- 
summation of  glory.'  The  first  fruits  were  that  portion  of 
the  productions  of  the  earth  which  were  offered  to  God.  From 
the  nature  of  the  case,  they  contained  the  evidence  and  assurance 
of  the  whole  harvest  being  secured.  The  idea,  therefore,  of  an 
earnest  or  pledge  is  included  in  the  phrase,  as  well  as  that  of 
priority.  This  is  the  general  if  not  constant  use  of  the  word  in 
the  New  Testament.  Thus  Christ  is  called  "  the  first  fruits  of 
them  that  slept,"  1  Cor.  15:  20,  not  merely  because  he  rose  first, 
but  also  because  his  resurrection  was  a  pledge  of  the  resurrection 
of  his  people.  See  Rom.  11:  16.  16:  5.  1  Cor.  16:  15.  James 
1:  18.  In  all  these  places  both  ideas  rnay  be,  and  probably 
ought  to  be  retained.  In  the  passages  before  us,  what  is  here 
called  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  is  elsewhere  called  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit,  Eph.  1:  1-1,  &c.  The  phrases,  there- 
fore, the  Spirit  which  is  the  first  fruits,  and  the  Spirit 
luhich  is  an  earnest,  are  synonymous.  The  Spirit  is  the  first 
fruits  of  the  full  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  liglit.  The  ex- 
pression in  the  text,  therefore,  is  descriptive  of  all  Christians, 
and  not  of  any  particular  class  of  them;  that  is,  it  is  not  to  be 
confined  to  those  who  first  received  the  influences  of  the  Spirit, 
or  were  first  converted. 

Even  we  oiirsehes,  or,  a)id  ive  oin^sclves.     These  words  are 

*  Particula  Hactenus,  vel  ad  hunc  uscjuc  ilicm,  ad  levandum  diuturni  lanf^ioris 
taedium  pprtinct.  Nanisi  tot  sacculis  durarunl  in  suo  goniitu  troatiirac,  (luani  in- 
cxcusabilis  cril  nostra  mollitics  vel  ignavia,  si  in  brevi  uinliratilis  vitae  curriculo  dc- 
ficiraus  ? — Calvin. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  339 

by  many  understood  to  refer  to  the  apostle  himself.  '  Not  only 
Christians  generally,  but  I  myself.'  But  it  is  not  Paul's  manner 
to  distinguish  himself  thus  from  other  Christians.  The  passage 
is  more  natural  and  forcible  according  to  our  version.  '  Not 
only  the  whole  creation,  but  we  Christians,  even  we,  &c.' 
Groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the 
redemption  of  our  body.  What  in  the  previous  verse  he  had 
called  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God,  he  here  calls  the 
adoption  ;  the  time  when  it  shall  appear  what  we  shall  be,  as 
the  apostle  John  expresses  it.  The  redemption  of  the  body 
is  not  so  in  opposition  with  the  adoption  that  the  two  phrases 
are  equivalent.  The  adoption  includes  far  more  than  the  re- 
demption of  the  body.  But  the  latter  event  is  to  be  coincident 
with  the  former,  and  is  included  in  it,  as  one  of  its  most  promi- 
nent parts.  Both  expressions,  therefore,  designate  the  same 
period.  '  We  wait  for  the  time  when  we  shall  be  fully  recog- 
nised as  the  children  of  God,  i.  e.  for  the  time  when  our  vile 
bodies  shall  be  fashioned  like  unto  the  glorious  body  of  the  Son 
of  God.'  How  much  stress  Paul  laid  upon  the  redemption  of 
the  body  is  evident  not  only  from  this  passage,  and  that  in  Phil. 
3:  21,  just  quoted,  but  also  from  the  whole  of  1  Cor.  15,  espe- 
cially the  latter  part  of  the  chapter.  The  time  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  or  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God,  is  the 
time  of  the  second  advent  of  Jesus  Christ.  See  1  Cor.  15:  23, 
"  Christ  the  first  fruits;  afterwards  they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his 
coming."  1  Thess.  4:  16,  "  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend 
from  heaven  with  -a  shout;  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise 
first.  Then  we  which  are  alive,  &c."  This  is  the  period 
towards  which  all  eyes  and  all  hearts  have  been  directed  among 
those  who  have  had  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit  since  the  fall  of 
Adam;  and  for  which  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  is  in 
travail  even  until  now. 


Having  now  examined  those  verses  which  are  necessary 
for  understanding  what  Paul  means  by  the  creature  or  whole 
creation  in  this  interesting  passage,  we  are  better  prepared  to 
investigate  that  point.  It  is  by  no  means  our  intention  to  enter 
at  length  on  this  subject,  because  it  is  unnecessary,  and  because 
it  would  be  foreign  to  the  design  of  this  work.     Those  who 


340  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

wish  to  see  this  matter  canvassed  at  length,  may  consult  the 
works  referred  to  in  the  margin.* 

As  remarked  above,  our  principal  guide,  in  the  interpretation 
of  this  passage,  is  the  context,  and  analogous  passages  in  other 
parts  of  scripture.  The  usage  of  the  word  (xtiVi?)  employed 
by  the  apostle,  throws  but  little  light  on  the  subject.  It  means 
properly  the  act  of  creating.  Rom.  1 :  20,  ^'•from  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world:"  and  then,  by  metonymy,  it  means  that 
which  is  created;  Rom.  1:  25,  "Who  serve  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator;"  Col.  1:  15,  Christ  is  called  "the  first  born 
of  every  creature^^  i.  e.  'the  head  of  the  whole  creation;* 
Rev.  3:  14,  he  is  called  the  "  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God," 
that  is,  as  before, '  The  head  of  the  creation.'  It  is  also  used 
of  rational  creatures  exclusively.  Mark  16:  15,  "Preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature f^  Col.  1:  23,  "Which  was  preached 
to  every  creature  under  heaven."  The  phrase  n.ew  creature 
does  not  seem  to  belong  here,  as,  from  the  connexion  in  which 
it  occurs,  it  may  mean  simply  a  great  change,  a  neiv  creation. 
These  are  all  the  senses  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament.t  Whether,  therefore,  it  means  here  the  rational  or 
irrational  creation,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  context.  It 
is  not  our  object  even  to  enumerate  in  detail  the  various  inter- 
pretations of  this  passage.  There  arc  but  two  which  have  much 
plausibility.  The  first  is  that  which  makes  the  creature  to 
mean  mankind  generally,  the  whole  human  family,  the  rational 
fcreation  on  earth.  The  second  supposes  it  to  mean  the  irra- 
tional creation,  considered  as  a  whole.  The  former  of  these 
views  is  presented  somewhat  differently  by  its  advocates.  Some 
make  the  whole  creation  to  mean  the  ivortd,  i.  e.  unconverted 
7)ien;  and  others,  the  human  family,  without  reference  to  the 
distinction  between  Christians  and  others.  But  this  seems  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  marked  distinction  which  Paul  makes 
between  the  creature  and  the  sons  of  God,  which  seems  to  im- 


•  PnoF.  Stcaht's  Dissertation  on  Rom.  8:  18 — 25,  Biblical  Rcposifor)', 
Vol.  I.  p.  363.  Kkil's  Opuscula  Academica,  p.  194.  Nof.sselt's  Opuscula  Aca- 
demica,  Fasciculus  I.  p.  113.  Tholuck  and  Flatt  on  the  Romans,  particularly 
the  latter,  who  discusses  the  matter  at  great  length. 

I  1  Pet.  2:  13,  '::i.(S-r\  dv^pwirivrj  XTifl'ci  is  rendered  "To  every  ordinance  of 
man  ;"  by  others,  "  To  every  human  creature." 


ROMANS  S:  12— 2S.  341 

ply  that  the  latter  were  not  a  part  of  the  former;  see  vs.  19, 23. 
It  is  most  common,  therefore,  among  the  advocates  of  this  view 
of  the  passage,  to  understand  by  the  creature  mankind  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  children  of  God,*  The  only  question  is,  does  this 
view  suit  the  context  ?  Can  what  is  here  said  of  the  creature, 
be  said  of  mankind  generally  ?  We  think  not, 

1.  It  cannot  be  said  of  the  world  of  mankind,  that  they  have 
an  earnest  expectation  and  desire  for  the  manifestation  of  the 
sons  of  God,  The  common  longing  after  immortality,  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  defence  of  the  application  of  this 
verse  to  men  in  general,  is  very  far  from  coming  up  to  the  force 
of  the  passage,  "  The  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God"  is  a 
definite  scriptural  event,  just  as  much  as  the  second  advent 
of  Christ.  It  can,  therefore,  no  more  be  said  that  the  world 
longs  for  the  one  event  than  for  the  other.  Yet  had  the  apostle 
said  the  whole  creation  was  longing  for  the  second  advent  of 
the  Son  of  God,  can  any  one  imagine  he  meant  they  were  merely 
sighing  after  immortality  ?  He  evidently  intends,  that  the  crea- 
ture is  looking  forward,  with  earnest  expectation,  to  that  great 
scriptural  event  which,  from  the  beginning,  has  been  held  up 
as  the  great  object  of  hope,  viz,  the  consummation  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom, 

2,  It  cannot  be  said,  in  its  full  and  proper  force,  that  mankind 
were  brought  into  their  present  state  not  by  their  own  act  or 
"  willingly,"  but  by  the  act  and  power  of  God,  The  obvious 
meaning  of  v,  20  seems  to  be,  that  the  fact  that  the  creature 
was  subjected  to  its  present  state  not  by  itself,  but  by  God,  is 
the  reason,  at  once,  why  it  longs  for  deliverance,  and  may  hope 
to  obtain  it.  Such  exculpatory  declarations  respecting  men, 
are  not  in  keeping  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  speaking  either 
of  the  conduct  or  condition  of  the  world.  The  spirit  of  this 
verse  might  almost  be  expressed  thus,  '  It  is  not  so  much  the 
creature's  fault  as  God's,  that  it  is  subject  to  vanity.'  Nothing 
approaching  this  can,  of  course,  be  said  of  the  world  of  sinners. 

*  Hammoxd,  Lotke,  Lirhtfoot,  SE:HLEn,  A:vrjrox  and  others  may  be  quoted 
in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  Wetstein  expresses  the  same  view  briefly  and 
plausibly  thus :  Genus  humanum  dividitur  in  eos,  qui  jam  Christo  nomcn  dede- 
runt,  quique  primitiae  vocantur  hie  et  Jac.  I:  18,  et  rcliquos,  qui  nondum  Christo 
nomen  dederunt,  qui  vocantur  creatura,  vid.  Marc.  16  :  15.  Et  .fudaei  sentiunt 
onus  legis  suae  :  et  gentes  reliquae  tenebras  suas  palpant,  praedicatione  evangelii 
tanquam  e  somno  excitatae ;  ubique  magna  rerum  conversio  expectatur. 


.  342  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

3.  A  still  greater  difficulty  is  found  in  reconciling  this  inter- 
pretation with  V.  21.  How  can  it  be  said  of  mankind,  as  a 
whole,  that  they  are  to  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption, and  made  partakers  of  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  chil- 
dren of  God  ?  And,  especially,  how  can  this  be  said  to  occur  at 
the  time  of  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.  at  the 
time  of  the  second  advent,  the  resurrection  day,  when  the  con- 
summation of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  is  to  take  place  ?  Ac- 
cording to  the  description  here  given,  the  whole  creation  is 
to  groan  under  its  bondage  until  the  day  of  redemption,  and 
then  it  also  is  to  be  delivered.  This  description  can,  in  no  satis- 
factory sense,  be  applied  to  mankind,  as  distinguished  from  the 
people  of  God. 

4.  This  interpretation  does  not  suit  the  spirit  of  the  context 
or  drift  of  the  passage.  The  apostle  is  represented  as  saying, 
in  substance,  "The  very  nature  and  condition  of  the  human 
race  point  to  a  future  state;  they  declare  that  this  is  an  imper- 
fect, frail,  dying,  unhappy  state;  that  man  does  not  and  cannot 
attain  the  end  of  his  being  here;  and  even  Christians,  supported 
as  they  are  by  the  earnest  of  future  glory,  still  fmd  themselves 
obliged  to  sympathize  with  others  in  these  sufferings,  sorrows 
and  deferred  hopes."*  But  how  feeble  and  attenuated  is  all 
this,  compared  to  the  glowing  sentiments  of  the  apostle!  His 
object  is  not  to  show  that  this  state  is  one  of  frailty  and  sorrow, 
and  that  Christians  must  feel  this  as  well  as  others.  On  the 
contrary,  he  wishes  to  show  that  the  sutferings  of  this  state  arc 
utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  future  glory  of  the 
sons  of  God.  And  then  to  prove  how  great  this  glory  is,  he  says 
the  whole  creation,  with  outstretched  neck,  has  been  longing  for 
its  manifestation  from  the  beginning  of  the  world:  groaning  not 
so  much  under  present  evil  as  from  anxiety  for  future  good. 

Such  arc  the  principal  objections  to  the  former  of  the  two 
interpretations  mentioned  above.  It  is  easy,  however,  to 
object.  Can  the  other  view  of  the  passage  be  carried  through 
more  satisfactorily  ?  Can  what  Paul  says  of  the  creature  be 
understood  of  the  irrational  creation  ? 

1.  In  order,  as  just  remarked,  to  show  the  greatness  of  the 
future  glory  of  saints,  Paul  in  the  use  of  a  strong,  but  common 

*  PnoF.  Stiart's  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  j).  310. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  343 

figure,  represents  the  whole  creation  as  longhig  for  It.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  unnatural,  unusual,  or  unscriptural.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  heautiful  and  effective;  and 
at  the  same  time,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  manner  of  the 
sacred  writers.  How  common  is  it  to  represent  the  whole 
creation  as  a  sentient  hcing,  rejoicing  in  God's  favour,  trembling 
at  his  anger,  speaking  abroad  his  praise,  &c.  How  often  too  is 
it  represented  as  sympathizing  in  the  joy  of  the  people  of  God  ! 
"  The  mountains  and  hills  shall  break  forth  before  you  into 
singing,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  fields  shall  clap  their  hands," 
Is.  55:  12.  It  may  be  objected  that  such  passages  are  poetical; 
but  so  is  this.  It  is  not  written  in  metre,  but  it  is  poetical  in 
the  highest  degree.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  strong 
figurative  language  of  v.  19,  either  inappropriate  to  the  apostle's 
object,  or  inconsistent  with  the  manner  of  the  sacred  writers. 

2.  It  may,  with  the  strictest  propriety,  be  said,  that  the  irra- 
tional creation  was  subjected  to  vanity  not  willingly,  but  by  the 
authority  of  God.  It  shared  in  the  penalty  of  the  fall,  "  Cursed 
is  the  earth  for  thy  sake,"  Gen.  8:  17.  And  it  is  said  still  to 
suffer  for  the  sins  of  its  inhabitants.  "  Therefore  hath  the  curse 
devoured  the  earth,"  Is.  24:  6.  "How  long  shall  the  land 
mourn,  and  the  herbs  of  every  field  wither,  for  the  wickedness 
of  them  that  dwell  therein  ?"  Jer.  12:  4.  This  is  a  common 
mode  of  representation  in  the  scriptures.  How  far  the  face  of 
nature  was  affected,  or  the  spontaneous  fruitfulness  of  the 
earth  changed  by  the  curse,  it  is  vain  to  ask.  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  the  irrational  creation  was  made  subject  to  a  frail, 
dying,  miserable  state  by  the  act  of  God  (not  by  its  own),  in 
punishment  of  the  sins  of  men.  This  is  the  representation  of 
the  scriptures  and  this  is  the  declaration  of  Paul.  While  this  is 
true  of  the  irrational  creation,  it  is  not  true  of  mankind. 

3.  The  third  and  principal  point  in  the  description  of  the 
apostle  is,  that  this  subjection  of  the  creature  to  the  bondage  of 
corruption  is  not  final  or  hopeless,  but  the  whole  creation  is  to 
share  in  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  This  also 
is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  represen- 
tation on  this  subject.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers 
of  the  Old  Testament,  than  the  idea  that  the  whole  face  of  the 
world  is  to  be  clothed  in  new  beauty  when  the  Messiah 
appears.     ''  The  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad 


344  ROMANS  8:  12— 28. 

for  them;  and  the  desert  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose," 
&c.  &c.  Is.  35:  1.  29:  17.  32:  15,  16.  "The  wolf  also  shall 
dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the 
kid,  and  the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatling  together; 
and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them,"  Is.  11:  6.  Such  passages  are 
too  numerous  to  be  cited.  The  apostle  Peter,  speaking  of  the 
second  advent,  says,  the  present  state  of  things  shall  be  changed, 
the  heavens  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with 
fervent  heat;  "  Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look 
for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dvvelleth  righteous- 
ness," 2  Peter  3:  7 — 13.  "And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  and  a 
new  earth;  for  the  first  heavens  and  the  first  earth  were  passed 
away,"  Rev.  21:  1:  see  Heb.  12:26,  27.  It  is  common,  there- 
fore, to  describe  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  as  attended  with  a 
great  and  glorious  change  of  the  external  world.  Whether  this 
is  intended  merely  as  an  exornation,  as  is  doubtless  the  case 
with  many  of  the  prophetic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament;  or 
whether  it  is  really  didactic,  and  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
restoration  of  the  earth,  to  more  than  its  pristine  beauty,  which 
seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  some  of  the  New  Testament  pas- 
sages, is  perfectly  immaterial  to  our  present  purpose.  It  is 
enough  that  the  sacred  writers  describe  the  consummation  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom  as  attended  with  the  palingenesia  of 
the  whole  creation.  This  is  all  Paul  does;  whether  poetically 
or  didacticall)'^,  is  too  broad  a  question  to  be  here  entered  upon. 
4.  In  further  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be 
remarked,  that  this  doctrine  of  the  renewal  of  the  external  world, 
derived  from  the  language  of  the  prophets,  was  a  common  doc- 
trine among  the  Jews.  Abundant  evidence  of  this  fact  may  be 
seen  in  Eisenmenger's  Entdccktes  Judcnthum  (Judaism  Re- 
vealed), particularly  in  chapter  15th  of  the  second  part.  The 
following  passages  are  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
Jewish  writers  speak  on  this  subject.  "  Hereafter,  when  the 
sin  of  men  is  removed,  the  earth,  which  God  cursed  on  account 
of  that  sin,  will  return  to  its  former  state  and  blessedness  as  it 
was  before  the  sin  of  men,"  p.  828.  "  At  this  time  the  whole 
creation  sli:dl  be  changed  for  the  belter,  and  return  \o  the 
perfection  and  purity  which  it  had  in  the  time  of  the  first  man, 
before  sin  was."  See  this  latter  quotation  and  others  of  a 
similar  impoit  in  Tholuck.     In  the  early  Christian  church  this 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  345 

opinion  was  prevalent,  and  was  the  germ  whence  the  extrava- 
gances of  the  Millenarians  arose.  Ahnost  all  such  errors  contain 
a  portion  of  truth,  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  their  origirt 
and  extension.  The  vagaries,  therefore,  of  the  early  heretics,, 
and  the  still  grosser  follies  of  the  Talmudical  writers  on  this^ 
subject,  furnish  presumptive  and  confirmatory  evidence,  that 
the  sacred  writers  did  teach  a  doctrine,  or  at  least  employed  a 
mode  of  speaking  of  the  future  condition  of  the  external  world, 
which  easily  accounts  for  these  errors. 

5.  This  interpretation  is  suited  to  the  apostle's  object,  which 
was  not  to  confirm  the  truth  of  a  future  state,  but  to  produce  a 
strong  impression  of  its  glorious  character.  What  could  be 
better  adapted  to  this  object  than  the  grand  and  beautiful  figure 
of  the  whole  creation  in  an  agony  of  earnest  expectation  for  its 
approach  ? 

6.  This  is  the  common  interpretation,  which,  other  things 
being  equal,  is  a  great  recommendation,  as  the  most  obvious 
sense  is  almost  always  the  true  one. 

7.  The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage  are  inconclusive. 
1.  It  is  objected  that  it  Avould  require  us  to  understand  all  such 
passages,  as  speak  of  a  latter  day  of  glory,  literally,  and  believe 
that  the  house  of  God  is  to  stand  on  the  top  of  the  mountains, 
&c.  &c.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  When  it  is  said  "  The  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God,"  we  do  not  understand  the  words 
literally,  when  we  understand  them  as  speaking  of  the  visible 
heavens.  Neither  are  the  prophetic  descriptions  of  the  state  of 
the  world  at  the  time  of  the  second  advent  explained  literally, 
even  when  understood  didactically,  that  is,  as  teaching  that 
there  is  to  be  a  great  and  glorious  change  in  the  condition  of 
the  world.  But  even  this,  as  remarked  above,  is  not  necessary 
to  make  good  the  common  interpretation.  It  is  sufficient  that 
Paul,  after  the  manner  of  the  other  sacred  writers,  describes  the 
external  world  as  sympathizing  with  the  righteous,  and  partici- 
pating in  the  glories  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  If  this  be  a  poetic 
exaggeration  in  the  one  case,  it  may  be  in  the  other.  Again, 
it  is  objected  that  the  common  interpretation  is  not  suited  to  the 
design  of  the  passage.  But  this  objection  is  founded  on  a  mis- 
apprehension of  that  design.  The  apostle  does  not  intend  to 
confirm  our  assurance  of  the  truth  of  future  glory,  but  to  exalt 
our  conceptions  of  its  greatness.     Finally,  it  is  said  to  be  very 

44 


346  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

unnatural  that  Paul  should  represent  the  external  world  as 
longing  for  a  better  state,  and  Christians  doing  the  same,  and 
the  world  of  mankind  be  left  unnoticed.  But  this  is  not  un- 
natural if  the  apostle's  design  be  as  just  stated. 

There  appears,  therefore,  to  be  no  valid  objection  against 
supposing  the  apostle,  in  this  beautiful  passage,  to  bring  into 
strong  contrast  with  our  present  light  and  momentary  afflictions, 
the  permanent  and  glorious  blessedness  of  our  future  state;  and, 
in  order  to  exalt  our  conceptions  of  its  greatness,  to  repre- 
sent the  whole  creation,  now  groaning  beneath  the  consequences 
of  the  fall,  as  anxiously  waiting  for  the  long  expected  day  of 
redemption. 


(24,  25)  The  apostle,  intending  to  show  that  the  present 
afflictions  of  believers  are  not  inconsistent  with  their  being  the 
children  of  God,  and  are  therefore  no  ground  of  discouragement, 
refers  not  only  to  their  comparative  insignificance,  but  also  to 
the  necessity  which  there  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  for 
these  sufferings.  '  Salvation,  in  its  fulness,  is  not  a  present 
good,  but  a  matter  of  hope,  and  of  course  future;  and  if  future,  it 
follows  that  we  must  wait  for  it  in  patient  and  joyful  expectation.' 
While,  therefore,  waiting  for  salvation  is  necessary  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  nature  of  the  blessing  waited  for,  converts 
expectation  into  desire,  and  enables  us  patiently  to  endure  all 
present  evils. 

Fo7'  ive  are  saved  by  hope.  At  the  close  of  the  preceding 
verse  Paul  had  spoken  of  believers  as  "  ivaiting  for  the  adop- 
tion.''^ They  thus  wait,  because  salvation  is  not  a  present 
good,  but  a  future  one.  We  are  saved  in  hope,  i.  e.  in  prospect. 
The  dative,  in  which  form  the  word  for  hope  here  occurs,  does 
not  in  this  case  express  the  means  by  which  any  thing  is  done,* 
but  the  condition  or  circumstances  in  which  it  is.t  It  is, 
therefore,  analagous  to  our  forms  of  expression,  toe  have  a  thing 
in  expectation  or  prospect.  Salvation  is  a  l^lessing  we  have  in 
hope,  not  in  possession;  if  it  be  the  one,  it  cannot  be  the  other, 
since  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of 
hojie  that  its  object  must   be  future.     The  word  hope  is  here 

*   Or  atj  Tholuck  says,  Paul  docs  nut  rcprcsi'iil  liopc  as  iho  opyavQV  XriTTTixov 
of  salvation  ;  this  officf  he  always  aasigiib  to  faith, 
t  Win  Ell's  tJramnialik,  p.  176. 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  347 

used  objectively  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as  in  Col.  1:  5, 
"The  hope  that  is  laid  up  for  you  in  heaven;"  Heb.  G:  IS. 
Eph.  1:  18,  &c.  The  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  ybr  lohat  a 
•man  seeth  V)hy  doth  he  yet  hope  for,  is  only  a  confirmation  of 
the  previous  declaration  that  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  hope  to 
have  reference  to  the  future. 

(25)  But  if  ive  hope  for  that  we  see  not,  &c.  That  is,  *  If 
hope  has  reference  to  the  unseen  and  the  future,  then  as  salva- 
tion is  a  matter  of  hope,  it  is  a  matter  to  be  waited  for.'  It 
results,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  plan  of  redemption, 
that  the  full  fruition  of  its  blessing  should  not  be  obtained  at 
once,  but  that,  through  much  tribulation,  believers  should  enter 
into  the  kingdom;  consequently  their  being  called  upon  to 
suffer,  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  their  being  sons  and  heirs. 
Theyi  do  ive  with  patience  ivait  for  it.  There  is  something 
more  implied  in  these  words  than  that  salvation,  because  unseen, 
must  be  waited  for.  This  no  doubt,  from  the  connexion,  is  the 
main  idea,  but  we  not  only  wait,  but  we  wait  ivith  patience 
or  constancy.  There  is  something  in  the  very  expectation  of 
future  good,  and,  especially,  of  such  good,  the  glory  that  shall 
be  revealed  in  us,  to  produce  not  only  the  patient,  but  even 
joyful  endurance  of  all  present  suffering. 

(26)  Not  only  so.  Not  only  does  hope  thus  cheer  and  sup- 
port the  suffering  believer,  but  likewise  the  Spirit  also  hcl])eth 
our  infirmities.  Likeivise,  literally  in  the  same  way.  As 
hope  sustains,  so,  in  the  same  manner,  the  Spirit  does  also.  Not 
that  the  mode  of  assistance  is  the  same,  but  simply  as  the  one 
does,  so  also  does  the  other.  In  this  case  at  least,  therefore,  the 
word  thus  rendered  is  equivalent  with  moreover.  The  trans- 
lation likewise  suits  the  context  exactly.  Helpeth,  the  word 
thus  rendered,  means  to  take  hold  of  any  thing  loith  another, 
to  take  part  in  his  burden  and  thus  to  aid.  It  is,  therefore,  pecu- 
liarly expressive  and  appropriate.  It  represents  the  condescend- 
ing Spirit  as  taking  upon  himself,  as  it  were,  a  portion  of  our  sor- 
rows to  relieve  us  of  tlieir  pressure.*     Our  infirmities^  is  the 

*  Magna  est  vis  Graeci  verbi  rfuvavTiXafx/SavsrfSai,  quod  scilicet  partes  oneris 
quo  nostra  intirmitas  gravatur,  ad  sc  recipiens  Spiritus  non  mode  auxiliatur  nobis 
et  succurrit,  sed  perindc  nos  sublevat  acsi  ipse  nobiscum  onus  subiret. — Calvix. 

\  For  TCLig  cttf&svsiai?,  the  singular  <r^  affSevsia  is  read  by  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  10, 
23,  31,  37,  47,  and  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions.     Lachmann  has  the  singular. 


348  ROMANS  8:  12—28. 

appropriate  rendering  of  the  original,  which  expresses  the  idea 
both  of  weakness  and  suffering.  Heb.  4:15,  "  We  have  not  an 
high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  in- 
firmities;" 2  Cor.  12:  5,  "  I  will  not  glory,  but  in  mine  infirmi- 
ties." 

For  we  know  not  ivhat  we  should  pray  for  as  ice  ought; 
but  the  Spirit,  &:c.  This  is  said  as  an  illustration  and  con- 
firmation of  the  previous  general  declaration;  it  is  an  example 
of  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit  aids  us.  '  He  helpeth  our 
infirmities,  for  he  teaches  us  how  to  pray,  dictating  to  us  our 
supplications,  &c.'  The  necessity  for  this  aid  arises  from  our 
ignorance,  we  know  not  what  to  pray  for.  We  cannot  tell 
what  is  really  best  for  us.  Heathen  philosophers  gave  this  as 
a  reason  why  men  ought  not  to  pray!*  How  miserable  their 
condition  when  compared  to  ours.  Instead  of  our  ignorance 
putting  a  seal  upon  our  lips  and  leaving  our  hearts  to  break,  the 
Spirit  gives  our  desires  a  language  heard  and  understood  of 
God.  As  we  do  not  know  how  to  pray,  the  Spirit  teaches  us. 
This  idea  the  apostle  expresses  by  saying  the  Spirit  itself 
maketh  intercession  for  vs.  The  simple  verb  {svTuyxdvu),  ren- 
dered he  muheth  intercession,  properly  means  to  meet,  then 
to  approach  any  one  to  make  suj)plication.  Acts  25:  24. 
This  supplication  may  be  against  any  one,  Rom.  11:2,  or  for 
him,  V.  SK  Heb.  7:  25.  Hence,  to  intercede  for,  is  to  act 
the  part  of  advocate  in  behalf  of  any  one.  This  Christ  is  said  to 
do  for  us  in  the  last  two  jjassages  cited,  as  well  as  in  Heb.  9:  24. 
1  John  2:  1,  and  John  14:  16,  for  Christ  calls  tlie  Holy  Spirit 
^'^  another  advocate,''  i.  e.  anotlicr  llian  himself.  This  office  is 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit  in  the  last  ])iissagc  quoted  in  John  14:  26. 
15:  2G,  and  l(i:  7,  as  well  as  in  llie  passage  before  us.  As  the 
Spirit  is  thus  said,  in  tlie  general,  to  do  for  us  Avhat  an  advocate 
did  for  his  client,  so  he  does  also  what  it  was  the  special  duty 
of  the  advocate  to  perform,  i.  e.  lo  dictate  to  his  clients  what 
they  ought  to  say,  how  they  should  present  their  cause.t  In  this 
sense  the  present  passage   is  to   be  understood.     '  We  do  not 

•  Tiioffenes,  L.  A'lII.  9.  Pythagoras  oux  ea  sUySffSai  wsV  sauTWV  5m  to  [i.y\ 
sl^ivai  TO  tfufJKpe'iov — Wetstein. 

■|-  See  Knapp's  Dissertation  De  Spiritu  Sancio  ot  Cliristo  Pararlrtis,  p,  1  M,  of 
his  Scripta  Varii  Arp;umrnti.  Or  tlie  tiaiislation  of  (Iiat  Disst'ilatioii  in  liie  Bibli- 
cal Repertory,  Vol.  I.  p.  *31. 


ROMANS  S:  12— 2S.  349 

know  how  to  pray,  but  the  Sph-it  teaches.  He  excites  in  us 
those  desires  which,  though  never  uttered  except  in  sighs,  or 
which,  though  too  big  for  utterance,  are  known  and  heard  of 
God,'*  It  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  means  to  say  these  groan- 
ings  cannot  be  uttered,  or  simply,  that  they  are  not  uttered; 
desires  which  vent  themselves  only  in  sighs.  The  Greek 
word  admits  of  either  sense,  and  either  is  suited  to  the  context. 

(27)  Though  these  desii'es  are  not,  or  cannot  be  clothed  in 
words,  the  eye  of  him  who  searches  the  heart  can  read  and  under- 
stand them  there.  And  he  who  scarchclh  the  hearts,  knoweth 
luhat  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  The  conjunction  ought  to 
be  rendered  disjunctively.  '  The  groanings  cannot  be  uttered, 
but  they  are  neither  unintelligible  nor  neglected.'  He  who 
searcheth  the  hearts  is  a  common  paraphrase  for  God,  and  here 
most  appropriate.  As  no  man  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  a  man, 
save  the  spirit  of  man  that  is  in  him;  to  read  those  unexpressed 
emotions  of  the  soul,  is  the  prerogative  of  that  Being  to  whose 
eyes  all  things  are  naked  and  opened.  "  I  the  Lord  search 
the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,"  Jer.  17:  10;  see  Ps.  7:  9.  Rev. 
2:  23,  &c.  &c. 

Knoweth  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  Not  simply  understands, 
but  recognises  and  approves,  as  he  knows  "  the  ways  of  the 
righteous,"  Ps.  1 :  6.  The  former  idea,  that  of  understanding, 
though  the  more  prominent,  does  not  exclude  the  qthcr.t  The 
Tnind  of  the  Spirit,^  i.  e.  those  feelings  or  that  state  of  mind 
of  which  the  Spirit  is  the  author,  the  desires  which  the  Spirit 
calls  forth  in  our  souls.  77ie  Spirit  must  necessarily  be  that 
Spirit  which  intercedes  for  the  saints;  and  which,  in  the  pro- 
ceding  verse,  is  expressly  distinguished  from  our  souls.     The 

*  Interpellare  autcm  dicitur  Spiritus  Dei,  non  quod  ipse  re  vera  suppliciter  se  ad 
precandum  vel  gemendum  demittat,  sed  quod  in  aniinis  nostris  excitet  ea  vota.  qui- 
bus  nos  sollicitari  convenit :  dcindc  corda  nostra  sic  afficiat,  ut  suo  ardore  in  coeluni 
penctrent. — Caltin. 

"As  a  mother  dictates  its  prayers  to  her  child,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  to  us,  who  re- 
peat them  with  a  faltering  tongue." — St.  Mautin  I'homme  de  dcsir,  p.  280,  as 
quoted  by  Tholuck. 

■j-  Hie  verbi  ^^"0886  adnotanda  est  proprictas :  significat  enim,  Deum  non  ut 
novos  et  insolentes  illos  Spiritus  affectus  non  animadvertere,  vel  tanquam  absurdos 
rejicere :  sed  agnoscere,  et  simul  beniguc  cxcipere  ut  agnitos  sibi  et  probatos. — 
Calvijt. 

t  To  (ppf'ivriij.a  tou  avsJ/xaToj. 


350  ROMANS  S:  12—28. 

interpretation,  therefore,  which  makes  "  the  mind  of  the 
SpiriC^  mean  the  desires  of  our  .9/?^>^7,  though  it  would  give  a 
very  good  sense,  is  irreconcileable  with  the  context. 

Because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according 
to  the  ivill  of  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  God  is  said  to 
know,  i.  e.  not  only  to  understand,  hut  to  approve  the  mind  of 
the  Spirit,  or  those  unutterable  longings  which  the  Spirit  ex- 
cites. Being  produced  by  the  Spirit  of  God  himself,  they  are, 
of  course,  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  and  secure  of  being 
approved  and  answered.  This  is  the  great  consolation  and  sup- 
port of  believers.  Tliey  know  not  either  what  is  best  for  them- 
selves or  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God;  but  the  Holy  Spirit 
dictates  those  petitions  and  excites  those  desires  which  are 
consistent  with  the  divine  purposes,  and  which  are  directed 
towards  blessings  the  best  suited  to  our  wants.  Such  prayers 
are  always  answered.  "And  this  is  the  confidence  that  we 
have  in  him,  that  if  we  ask  any  thing  according  to  his  will,  he 
hearelh  us,"  1  John  5:  7.* 

(28)  Jind  we  know  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
them  that  love  God,  kc.  This  may  be  regarded  as  virtually, 
though  not  formally,  an  inference  from  what  Paul  had  taught 
concerning  afflictions.  As  they  arc  comparatively  insignificant, 
as  they  call  forth  the  exercises  of  hope  and  give  occasion  for 
the  kind  interposition  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent with  our  salvation,  they  contribute  to  our  good.  It 
seems,  however,  more  natural  to  consider  the  apostle  as  pre- 
senting the  consideration  contained  in  this  verse,  as  an  additional 
reason  why  the  afflictions  of  this  life  are  not  inconsistent  with 
our  being  the  sons  of  God.  These  afflictions  are  real  blessings. 
tj^ll  things,  as  is  usually  the  case  with  such  general  expressions, 
is  to  be  limited  to  the  things  spoken  of  in  the  context,  i.  e.  the 
sufferings  of  the  present  time.  Sec  1  Cor.  2:  15,  where  the 
spiritual  man  is  said  to  understand  "  all  things;"  Col.  1  20, 
where  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  "all  things  unto  God;"  and 
Eph.  1:  10,  with  many  other  similar  passages.!     Of  course,  it 

*  Quarc  si  orationos  nostras  accojitas  Doo  volumus,  rogandus  ipse  ut  oas  mode- 
rctur  ad  suum  ailiilriiiin. — (^alvin. 

■j-  Tenendum  est,  Pnuliim  non  nisi  de  rehns  adversis  loqui  :  aesi  dixisset  Divini- 
tUR  sic  temjierari  (|iiarcMn(|ue  sanrtis  aeeidnnt,  ut,  quod  nuuidus  noxiiim  esse  jiutal, 
exitus  utile  esse  denionstret.     Nam  taiaetsi  veium  est,  ijuod  ait  Augustinus,  pee- 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  351 

is  not  intended  that  other  events,  besides  afflictions,  do  not 
work  together  for  the  good  of  Christians,  but  merely  that  this 
idea  is  not  here  expressed  by  the  ajDOstle. 

Those  to  whom  afflictions  are  a  real  blessing  are  described, 
first,  as  those  who  love   God;  and  secondly,  as  those  ivho  are 
called  according  to  his  purpose.     The  former  of  these  clauses 
describes  the  character  of  the  persons  intended;  they  love  God, 
which  is  a  comprehensive  expression  for  all  the  exercises  of 
genuine  religion.     The  latter  clause  declares  a  fact,  with  regard 
to  all  such,  which  has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  apostle's 
great  object  in  this  chapter,  they  are  called  according  to  his 
jnirpose.     The  word  called,  as  remarked  above  (1 :  7),  is  never, 
in  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  those  who  are 
the  recipients  of  the  mere  external  invitation  of  the  gospel.     It 
always  means  effectually  called,  i.  e.  it  is  always  applied  to 
those  who  are  really  brought  to  accept  of  the  blessings  to  which 
they  are  invited.     1  Coi-.  1 :  24,  "  But  to  those  who  are  called," 
i.  e.  to  true  Christians.     Jude  1,  "To  those  who  are  sanctified 
by   God  the  Father,  and  are  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ  the 
called,"  1  Cor.  1:  2,  &c.     The  word  is,  therefore,  often  equiva- 
lent with  chosen,  as  in  the  phrase  "  called  an  apostle,"  I  Cor. 
1:   1.  Rom.  1:  1,  and  "called  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.    1:   6. 
And  thus  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  Hearken  unto  me,  0  Jacob, 
and  Israel  my  called,"  Is.  48:  12;  see  Is.  42:  6.  49:  1.  51:  2. 
Those  who  love  God,  therefore,  are  those  whom  he  hath  chosen 
and  called   by  his  grace  to  a  participation  of  the   Redeemer's 
kingdom.     This  call  is  not  according  to  the  merits  of  men,  but 
according  to  the  divine  purpose.     "  Who  hath  saved  us,  and 
called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but 
according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began,"  2  Tim.  1:  9.  Eph.  1:11. 
Rom.  9:  11.     The  design  of  the  apostle,  in  the  introduction  of 
this  clause,  seems  to  have  been  two  fold.     First,  to  show,  ac- 
cording to  his  usual  manner,  that  the  fact  that  some  men  love 
God  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  sovereign  grace,  and  not  to  them- 
selves; and,  secondly,  that  if  men  are  called,  according  to  the 
eternal  purpose   of  God,  their  salvation  is  secure.     By   this 

cala  quoiiue  sua,  oidinante  Dei  providcnlia,  sauclis  adeo  non  nocere,  ut  potius 
eorum  saluli  iiiscrvianl :  ad  hiuic  tamcu  locum  non  pertinet,  ubi  de  cruce  agitur. 
— Calvix. 


352  ROMANS  8:  \2—2B. 

latter  idea,  this  clause  is  associated  with  the  passage  that 
follows,  and  with  the  general  object  of  the  chapter.  Tliat  the 
calling  of  men  does  secure  their  salvation  is  proved  in  verses 
29—30. 

Doctri7ies. 

1.  True  Christians  are  the  sons  of  God,  objects  of  his  affec- 
tion, partakers  of  his  moral  nature,  and  heirs  of  his  kingdom, 
V.  14. 

2.  The  relation  of  God  to  us  is  necessarily  the  counterpart 
of  ours  to  him.  If  we  feel  as  friends  to  him,  he  feels  as  a  friend 
towards  us;  if  our  sentiments  are  filial,  his  are  parental,  v.  15. 

3.  God,  who  is  every  where  present  and  active,  manifests 
his  presence,  and  communicates  with  his  creatures  in  a  manner 
accordant  with  their  nature,  although  in  a  way  that  is  inscruta- 
ble, v.  16. 

4.  Assurance  of  salvation  has  a  twofold  foundation.  The 
experience  of  those  affections  which  are  the  evidences  of  true 
piety,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  latter  can  never 
be  separated  from  the  former;  for  the  Spirit  can  never  testify 
to  what  is  not  the  truth.  He  can  never  assure  an  enemy  that 
he  is  a  child  of  God,  v.  16. 

5.  Union  with  Christ  is  the  source  of  all  our  blessings  of 
justification  and  sanctification,  as  taught  in  the  previous  chap- 
ters, and  of  salvation,  as  taught  in  this,  v.  17. 

6.  Afflictions  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  nor 
w^th  our  being  the  sons  of  God,  vs.  18 — 25. 

7.  The  future  glory  of  the  saints  must  be  inconceivably  great, 
if  the  whole  creation,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  groans 
and  longs  for  its  manifestation,  vs.  If) — 23. 

8.  The  curse  consequent  on  the  fall  has  affected  the  state  of 
the  external  world.  The  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion may  be  attended  with  its  regeneration,  vs.  20 — 22. 

9.  The  present  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  first  fruits  of  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints;  the  same  in  kind  with  the  blessings 
of  the  future  state,  though  less  in  degree.  They  are  a  pledge 
of  future  blessedness,  and  always  produce  an  earnest  longing  for 
the  fruition  of  the  full  inheritance,  v.  23. 

10.  As,  for  wise  reasons,  salvation  is  not  immediately  conse- 
quent on  regeneration,  hope,  which  is  the  joyful  expectation 


ROMANS  8:  12—28.  353 

of  future  good,  becomes  the  duty,  solace  and  support  of  the 
Christian,  vs.  24,  25. 

11.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  our  Paraclete  (John  14:  16)  or  ad- 
vocate, we  are  his  clients,  we  know  not  how  to  plead  our  own 
cause,  but  he  dictates  to  us  what  we  ought  to  say.  This  office 
of  the  Spirit  ought  to  be  recognised,  sought,  and  gratefully 
acknowledged,  v.  26. 

12.  Prayer  to  be  acceptable  must  be  according  to  the  will  of 
God,  and  it  always  is  so  when  it  is  dictated  or  excited  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  v.  27. 

13.  All  events  are  under  the  control  of  God;  and  even  the 
greatest  afflictions  are  productive  of  good  to  those  who  love  him, 
v.  28. 

14.  The  calling  or  conversion  of  men,  involving  so  many  of 
their  free  acts,  is  a  matter  of  divine  purpose,  and  it  occurs  in 
consequence  of  its  being  so,  v.  28. 

Remarks. 

1.  If  God,  by  his  Spirit,  condescends  to  dwell  in  us,  it  is  our 
highest  duty  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  governed  or  led  by  him, 
vs.  12,  13. 

2.  It  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  profess  to  be  the  sons  of 
God,  if  destitute  of  the  filial  feelings  of  confidence,  affection, 
and  reverence,  v.  15. 

3.  A  spirit  of  fear,  so  far  from  being  an  evidence  of  piety, 
is  an  evidence  of  the  contrary.  The  filial  spirit  is  the  genuine 
spirit  of  religion,  v.  15. 

4.  Assurance  of  hope  is  not  fanatical,  but  is  an  attainment 
which  every  Christian  should  make.  If  the  witness  of  men  is 
received,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater.  As  the  manifestation 
of  God's  love  to  us  is  made  in  exciting  our  love  towards  him, 
so  the  testimony  of  his  Spirit  with  ours,  that  we  are  the  sons 
of  God,  is  made  when  our  filial  feelings  are  in  lively  exercise, 
V.  16. 

5.  Christians  ought  neither  to  expect  nor  wish  to  have  sufier- 
ing  with  Christ  disconnected  with  their  being  glorified  with 
him.     The  former  is  a  preparation  for  the  latter,  v.  17. 

6.  The  afflictions  of  this  life,  though  in  themselves  not  joyous 
but  grievous,  are  worthy  of  little  regard  in  comparison  with  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us.     To  bear  these  trials  properly, 

45 


354  ROMANS  S:  29— 39. 

we  should  think  much  of  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God, 
V.  18. 

7.  As  the  present  state  of  things  is  one  of  bondage  to  cor- 
ruption, as  there  is  a  dreadful  pressure  of  sin  and  misery  on  the 
whole  creation,  we  should  not  regard  the  world  as  our  home, 
but  desire  deliverance  from  this  bondage  and  introduction  into 
the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  vs.  19 — 22. 

8.  It  is  characteristic  of  genuine  piety  to  have  exalted  con- 
ceptions of  future  blessedness,  and  earnest  longings  after  it. 
Those,  therefore,  who  are  contented  with  the  world  and  indif- 
ferent about  heaven,  can  hardly  possess  the  first  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  v.  23. 

9.  Hope  and  patience  are  always  united.  If  we  have  a  well- 
founded  hope  of  heaven,  then  do  we  with  patience  and  fortitude 
wait  for  it.  This  believing  resignation  and  joyful  expectation 
of  the  promises  are  peculiarly  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
honourable  to  religion,  vs.  24,  25. 

10.  How  wonderful  the  condescension  of  the  Holy  Spirit! 
How  great  his  kindness  in  teaching  us,  as  a  parent  his  children, 
how  to  pray  and  what  to  pray  for!  How  abundant  the  conso- 
lation thus  afforded  to  the  pious  in  the  assurance  that  their 
prayers  shall  be  heard,  vs.  26,  27. 

11.  Those  who  are  in  Christ,  who  love  God,  may  repose  in 
perfect  security  beneath  the  shadow  of  his  wings.  All  things 
shall  work  together  for  their  good,  because  all  things  are  under 
the  control  of  him  who  has  called  them  to  the  possession  of 
eternal  life  according  to  his  own  purpose,  v.  28. 

CHAP.  8:  29—39. 

Analysis. 
This  section  contains  the  exhibition  of  two  additional  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  safety  of  believers.  The  first  of  these 
is  founded  on  the  decree  or  purpose  of  God,  vs.  29 — 30;  and 
the  second,  on  his  infinite  and  unchanging  love,  vs.  31 — 39. 
In  his  description  of  those  with  regard  to  whom  all  things  shall 
work  together  for  good,  Paul  had  just  said  that  they  were 
such  who  are  called  or  converted  in  execution  of  a  previous 
purpose  of  God,  v.  28.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  salvation  of 
believers  is  secure,  because  the  plan  on  which  God  acts  is  con- 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  355 

nected  in  all  its  parts;  whom  he  foreknows,  he  predestinates, 
calls,  justifies  and  glorifies.  Those,  therefore,  who  are  called, 
shall  certainly  be  saved,  vs.  29,  30.  Secondly,  if  God  is  for 
us  who  can  be  against  as  ?  If  God  so  loved  us  as  to  give  his 
Son  for  us,  he  will  certainly  save  us,  vs.  31,  32.  This  love  has 
already  secured  our  justification,  and  has  made  abundant  pro- 
vision for  the  supply  of  all  our  wants,  vs.  33,  34. 

The  triumphant  conclusion  from  all  these  arguments,  that 
nothing  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  but  that  we 
shall  be  more  than  conquerors  over  all  enemies  and  difficulties, 
is  given  in  vs.  35 — 39. 

Commentary. 

(29)  For  ivhoni  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate, 
&c.  The  connexion  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding,  and  the 
force  of  for,  appears  from  what  has  already  been  said.  Be- 
lievers are  called  in  accordance  with  a  settled  plan  and  purpose 
of  God,  for  whom  he  calls  he  had  previously  predestinated: 
and  as  all  the  several  steps  or  stages  of  our  salvation  are  in- 
cluded in  this  plan  of  the  unchanging  God,  if  we  are  predes- 
dinated  and  called,  we  shall  be  justified  and  glorified. 

Whom  he  did  foreknow.  As  the  words  to  know  and  fore- 
know are  used  in  three  different  senses,  applicable  to  the  present 
passage,  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  which  should 
be  preferred.  The  word  may  express  prescience  simply,  ac- 
cording to  its  literal  meaning;  or,  as  to  knoto  is  often  to  approve 
and  love,  it  may  express  the  idea  of  peculiar  affection  in  this 
case;  or  it  may  mean  to  select  or  determine  upon.  Among 
those  who  adopt  one  or  the  other  of  these  general  views,  there 
is  still  a  great  diversity  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  under- 
stand the  passage.  These  opinions  are  too  numerous  to  be  here 
recited. 

As  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  to  foreknow  gives  no 
adequate  sense,  inasmuch  as  all  men  are  the  objects  of  the  divine 
prescience,  whereas  the  apostle  evidently  designed  to  express 
by  the  word  something  that  could  be  asserted  only  of  a  par- 
ticular class;  those  who  adopt  this  meaning  here  supply  some- 
thing to  make  the  sense  complete.  Who  he  foreknew  would 
repent  and  believe,  or  who  would  not  resist  his  divine  influ- 
ence, or  some  such  idea.     There  are  two  objections  to  this 


356  ROMANS  8:  29— 39. 

manner  of  explaining  the  passage.  1.  The  addition  of  this 
clause  is  entirely  gratuitous;  and,  if  unnecessary,  it  is,  of  course, 
improper.  There  is  no  such  thing  said,  and,  therefore,  it  should 
not  be  assumed,  without  necessity,  to  be  implied.  2.  It  is  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  It  makes  the 
ground  of  our  calling  and  election  to  be  something  in  us,  our 
works;  whereas  Paul  says  that  such  is  not  the  ground  of  our 
being  chosen.  "  Who  hath  called  us  not  according  to  our 
works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  &c.," 
2  Tim,  1:  9.  Rom.  9:  11,  where  the  contrary  doctrine  is  not 
only  asserted,  but  proved  and  defended. 

The  second  and  third  interpretations  do  not  essentially  differ. 
The  one  is  but  a  modification  of  the  other;  for  whom  God  pe- 
culiarly loves,  he  does  thereby  distinguish  from  others,  which 
is  in  itself  a  selecting  or  choosing  of  them  from  among  others. 
The  usage  of  the  word  is  favourable  to  either  modification  of 
this  general  idea  of  preferring.  "  The  people  which  he  fore- 
knew," i.  e.  loved  or  selected,  Rom.  11:  2;  "Who  verily  was 
foreordained  (Gr.  foreknown),  i.  e.  fxed  vpon,  chosen  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  1  Peter  1:  20.  2  Tim.  2:  19. 
John  10:  14,  15;  see  also  Acts  2:  23.  1  Peter  1:  2.  The  idea, 
therefore,  obviously  is,  that  those  whom  God  peculiarly  loved, 
and  by  thus  loving  distinguished  or  selected  from  the  rest  of 
mankind;  or  to  express  both  ideas  in  one  word,  those  whom  he 
elected  he  predestined,  &c.* 

He  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
his  Son.  To  predestinate  is  to  destine  or  appoint  beforehand, 
as  the  original  word  is  used  in  Acts  4:  28,  "  To  do  whatsoever 
thy  hand  and  counsel  determined  before  to  be  done;"  "  Having 
predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children,"  Eph.  1:5; 
"  Being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who 
worketh  all  tilings  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,"  Eph,  1:11, 
In  all  the  cases  in  which  this  predestination  is  spoken  of,  the 
idea  is  distinctly  recognised,  that  the  ground  of  the  choice 
which  it  implies  is  not  in  us.  We  are  chosen  in  Christ,  or  ac- 
cording to  the  free  purpose  of  God,  &c.     This  is  a  fore-ord'inA- 

*  Dei  praecognitio,  cujus  hie  Paulus  mciniuit,  non  nuda  est  pracscientia,  ut 
stulte  fingunt  quidain  iniperiti:  sed  adoptio,  qua  filios  suos  a  reprobis  semper  dis- 
crevit.  Quo  scnsu  Pctras  dicit  fidelcs  in  sanctificationem  Spiritus  fuisse  clcctos 
secundum  praccognitioncm  Dei. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  357 

tion,  a  determination  which  existed  in  the  divine  mind  long 
prior  to  the  occurrence  of  the  event,  even  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  Eph.  1 :  4;  so  that  the  occurrences  in  time  are  the 
manifestations  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  and  the  execu- 
tion of  the  plan  of  which  they  form  a  part. 

The  end  to  which  those  whom  God  has  chosen,  are  pre- 
destined, is  conformity  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  i.  e.  that  they 
might  be  like  his  Son  in  character  and  destiny.  He  hath 
chosen  us  "  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before 
him,"  Eph.  1:  4.  4:  24.  "He  hath  predestined  us  to  the 
adoption,"  i.  e.  to  the  state  of  sons,  Eph.  1:5.  "  As  we  have 
borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image 
of  the  heavenly,"  1  Cor.  15:  49;  see  Phil.  3:  21.  1  John  3:  2. 
As  Paul,  in  verse  17,  had  spoken  of  our  suffering  with  Christ, 
and  in  the  subsequent  passage  was  principally  employed  in 
showing  that  though  in  this  respect  we  must  be  like  Christ,  it 
was  not  inconsistent  with  our  being  sons  and  heirs,  so  here, 
when  we  are  said  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  Christ,  the 
idea  of  our  bearing  the  same  cross  is  not  to  be  excluded.  We 
are  to  be  like  our  Saviour  in  moral  character,  in  our  present 
sufferings  and  future  glory.  As  this  conformity  to  Christ  in- 
cludes our  moral  likeness  to  him,  and  as  this  embraces  all  that 
is  good  in  us,  it  is  clear  that  no  supposed  excellence  origina- 
ting from  our  own  resources,  can  be  the  ground  of  our  being 
chosen  as  God's  people,  since  this  excellence  is  included  in 
the  end  to  which  we  are  predestined,* 

That  he  might  be  the  first  born  among  many  brethren. 
This  clause  may  express  the  design  or  merely  the  result  of 
what  had  just  been  said.  '  God  predestinated  us  to  be  sons,  in 
order  that  Christ  might  be,  &c.'  or  '  He  made  us  his  sons,  hence 
Christ  is,  &c.'  The  first  born  generally  expresses  merely 
the  idea  of  pre-eminence.  Ps.  89:  27,  "I  will  make  him  my 
first-born,"  i.  e.  I  will  highly  distinguish  him.  Col.  1:  15, 
"  First-born  of  every  creature,"  i.  e.  the  head  of  the  creation. 
As  all  those  who  are  called  are  destined  to  bear  the  image  of 
Christ,  to  share  in  the  dignity,  purity  and  blessedness  of  the 
children  of  God,  the  result  will  be,  that  Christ,  who  partakes  of 

*  Neque  simplic.itur  dixit  ut  conformes  sint  Christo,  sed  imagini  Chiisti :  ut 
doceret  vivum  et  conspicuura  exemplar  in  Christo,  quod  omnibus  Dei  filiis  pro- 
ponitur, — Calvix. 


358  ROMANS  8:  29—39. 

our  nature,  and  is  not  ashamed  to  call  us  brethren,  will  be  the 
glorious  head  and  leader  of  the  sons  of  God,  a  multitude  which 
no  man  can  number.* 

(30)  Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called.  Those  whom  he  had  thus  fore-ordained  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son  in  moral  character,  in  suffering,  and  in 
future  glory,  he  effectually  calls,  i.  e.  leads  by  the  external  in- 
vitation of  the  gospel,  and  by  the  efficacious  operation  of  his 
grace,  to  the  end  to  which  they  are  destined.  That  the  calling 
here  spoken  of  is  not  the  mere  external  call  of  the  gospel,  is 
evident  both  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case;  see  1  Cor.  1:  9,  "  God  is  faithful  by  whom  ye 
were  called  to  the  fellowship  of  his  Son,"  i.  e.  effectually  brought 
into  union  with  him.  In  the  same  chapter,  v.  24,  "  To  those 
which  are  called,  Christ  the  power  of  God,"  &c.  The  called  are 
here  expressly  distinguished  from  the  rejecters  of  the  external 
invitation,  1  Cor.  7:15,  18,  in  which  chapter  calling  is  re- 
peatedly put  for  effectual  conversion,  "  Is  any  man  called 
being  a  servant,  &c."  Heb.  9:15,  "That they  which  are  called 
may  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance."  Rom.  9:  12. 
Eph.  4:  4.  1  Thess.  2:  12,  and  many  similar  passages.!  This 
use  of  the  word,  thus  common  in  the  New  Testament,  is  ob- 
viously necessary  here,  because  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  call 
which  is  peculiar  to  those  who  are  finally  saved.  Whom  he 
calls  he  justifies  and  glorifies;  see  on  verse  28. 

Whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified;  and  whom  he 
justified,  them  he  also  glorified.  The  past  tense  here  used 
may  express  the  idea  of  frequency. %  Whom  he  calls,  he  is 
wont  to  justify;  and  whom  he  is  wont  to  justify,  is  he  accus- 
tomed to  glorify.  So  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  as  though 
the  present  tense  had  been  used,  '  Whom  he  calls,  he  justifies, 
&c.;'  see  James  1:  11.  1  Peter  1:  24,  where  the  same  tense  is 
rendered  as  the  present,  "  The  grass  withercth,  and  the  flower 
thereof  falleth  away."  Or  tlie  past  is  employed,  because  Paul 
is  speaking  of  that  God,  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning, 

*  Itaque  sicut  primogenitus  familiae  nomen  sustinet :  ita  Christus  in  sublimi 
gradu  locatur,  non  modo  ut  honorc  emincat  inter  fidcles,  sed  etiam  ut  comniuni 
fratemitatis  nota  sub  se  omncs  continent. — Caltin. 

■j-  See  above  on  ch.  1 :  7,  and  v.  28  of  this  chapter. 

\  See  Wi^iiii'b  Gruiuniatili,  p.  228. 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  S59 

and  In  whose  decree  and  purpose  all  future  events  are  com- 
prehended and  fixed;  so  that  in  predestinating  us,  he  at  the 
same  time,  in  effect,  called,  justified  and  glorified  us,  as  all  these 
were  included  in  his  purpose.* 

The  justification  here  spoken  of,  is  doubtless  that  of  which 
the  apostle  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  epistle,  the  re- 
garding and  treating  sinners  as  just,  for  the  sake  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  The  blessings  of  grace  are  never  separated 
from  each  others.  Election,  calling,  justification  and  salvation  are 
indissolubly  united;  and,  therefore,  he  who  has  clear  evidence 
of  his  being  called,  has  the  same  evidence  of  his  election  and 
final  salvation.  This  is  the  very  idea  the  apostle  means  to 
present  for  the  consolation  and  encouragement  of  believers. 
They  have  no  cause  for  despondency  if  the  children  of  God, 
and  called  according  to  his  purpose,  because  nothing  can  prevent 
their  final  salvation. 

(31)  What  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ?  That  is,  what  is 
the  inference  from  all  that  has  hitherto  been  said  ?  If  God  be 
for  us,  if  he  has  delivered  as  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  if 
he  has  renewed  us  by  his  Spirit  which  dwells  within  us,  if  he 
recognises  us  as  his  children  and  his  heirs,  and  has  predestinated 
us  to  holiness  and  glory,  ivho  can  be  against  ns  ?  If  God's 
love  has  led  to  all  the  good  just  specified,  what  have  we  to  fear 
for  the  future?  He  who  spared  not  his  own  Son  will  freely 
give  us  all  things.  This  verse  shows  clearly  what  has  been  the 
apostle's  object  from  the  beginning  of  the  chapter.  He  wished 
to  demonstrate  that  to  those  who  accede  to  the  plan  of  salvation 
which  he  taught,  i.  e.  to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  there  is 
no  ground  of  apprehension;  their  final  salvation  is  fully  secured. 
The  conclusion  of  the  chapter  is  a  recapitulation  of  all  his  former 
arguments,  or  rather  the  reduction  of  them  to  one,  which  com- 
prehends them  all  in  their  fullest  force;  God  is  for  us.  He, 
as  our  judge,  is  satisfied;  as  our  Father  he  loves  us;  as  the  Su- 
preme and  Almighty  controller  of  events,  who  works  all  things 
after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  he  has  determined  to  save  us; 
and  as  that  Being,  whose  love  is  as  unchanging  as  it  is  infinite, 
he  allows  nothing  to  separate  his  children  from  himself. 


*  Bengel  says,  Loquitur  in  praeterito,  tanquam  a  meta  respiciens  ad  stadium 
fidei,  et  ex  aeterna  gloria  in  ipsam  quasi  retro  eternitatem. 


360  ROMANS  8:  29—39. 

It  has  been  objected  that  if  Paul  had  intended  to  teach  these 
doctrines,  he  would  have  said  that  apostacy  and  sin  cannot 
interfere  with  the  salvation  of  believers.  But  what  is  salvation, 
but  deliverance  from  the  guilt  and  power  of  sin?  It  is,  there- 
fore, included  in  the  very  purpose  and  promise  of  salvation,  that 
its  objects  shall  be  preserved  from  apostacy  and  deadly  sins. 
This  is  the  end  and  essence  of  salvation.  And,  therefore,  to 
make  Paul  argue  that  God  will  save  us  if  we  do  not  apostatize, 
is  to  make  him  say,  those  shall  be  saved  who  are  not  lost.  Ac- 
cording to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  holiness  is  so  essential  and 
prominent  a  part  of  salvation,  that  it  is  not  so  much  a  means  to 
an  end  as  the  very  end  itself.  It  is  that  to  which  we  are  pre- 
destinated and  called,  and  therefore  if  the  promise  of  salvation 
does  not  include  the  promise  of  holiness,  it  includes  nothing. 
Hence,  to  ask,  whether  if  one  of  the  called  should  apostatize 
and  live  in  sin,  he  would  still  be  saved,  is  to  ask,  whether  he 
shall  be  saved  if  he  is  not  saved.  Nor  can  these  doctrines  be 
perverted  to  licentiousness  without  a  complete  denial  of  their 
nature.  For  they  not  only  represent  sin  and  salvation  as  two 
things  which  ought  not  to  be  united,  but  as  utterly  irrecon- 
cileable  and  contradictory. 

(32)  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  &c.  That  ground 
of  confidence  and  security  which  includes  all  others,  is  the  love 
of  God;  and  that  exhibition  of  divine  love  which  surpasses  and 
secures  all  others,  is  the  gift  of  his  own  Son.  Paul  having 
spoken  of  Christians  as  being  God's  sons  by  adoption,  was  led 
to  designate  Christ  as  his  own  peculiar  Son,  in  a  sense  in  which 
neither  angels  (Heb.  1 :  5)  nor  men  can  be  so  called.  That  this 
is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  evident,  1.  Because  this  is  its 
proper  force;  oiv?i  Son  being  opposed  to  adopted  sons.*  2.  Be- 
cause the  context  requires  it,  as  Paul  had  spoken  of  those  who 
were  sons  in  a  different  sense  just  before.  3.  Because  this 
apostle,  and  the  other  sacred  writers,  designate  Christ  as  Son  of 
God  in  the  highest  sense,  as  partaker  of  the  divine  nature;  see 
Rom.  1 :  4. 

But  delivered  him  vp  for  us  all.  He  was  delivered  up  to 
death;  see  Gal.  1:  4.  Rom.  4:  25.  Is.  53:  6.  38:  13,  (in  the 
LXX.)  and   Matt.  10:  21.     For  tis  all;  not  merely  for  our 

*  "iSios  to  SsTo's. 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  361 

benefit,  but  in  our  place;*  see  Rom.  5:  6,  7,  8,  &c.  Us  all, 
in  this  connexion,  can  only  be  understood  of  all  those  of  whom 
Paul  had  been  speaking,  all  who  love  God  and  are  called  ac- 
cording to  his  purpose. 

How  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things  ?  If 
God  has  done  the  greater,  he  will  not  leave  the  less  undone.  If 
he  has  given  his  Son  to  death,  he  will  not  fail  to  give  the  Spirit 
to  render  that  death  effectual.  This  is  the  ground  of  the  confi- 
dence of  believers.  They  do  not  expect  to  attain  salvation  be- 
cause they  are  sure  of  their  own  strength  of  purpose,  but  because 
the  love  of  God  towards  them  is  free  and  unbounded,  and  having 
led  to  the  gift  of  his  Son,  will  not  withhold  those  lesser  gifts 
which  are  necessary  for  their  final  security  and  blessedness.t 

(33)  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God^s 
elect  ?  This  and  the  following  verse  show  how  fully  the 
security  of  believers  is  provided  for  by  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion. What  is  it  they  have  to  fear  under  the  government 
of  a  just  and  powerful  God  ?  There  is  nothing  to  be  dreaded 
but  sin;  if  that  be  pardoned  and  removed,  there  is  nothing  left 
to  fear.  In  the  strongest  manner  possible,  the  apostle  declares 
that  the  sins  of  believers  are  pardoned,  and  shows  the  ground 
on  which  this  pardon  rests.  To  them,  therefore,  there  can  be 
neither  a  disquieting  accusation  nor  condemnation.  Who  can 
lay  any  thing  ?  Sac,  i.  e.  no  one  can,  neither  Satan,  conscience, 
nor  the  law.  If  the  law  of  God  be  satisfied,  "  the  strength  of 
sin,"  its  condemning  power,  is  destroyed.  Even  conscience, 
though  it  upbraids,  does  not  terrify.  Itproduces  the  ingenuous 
sorrow  of  children,  and  not  the  despairing  anguish  of  the  con- 
vict. Because  it  sees  that  all  the  ends  of  punishment  are  fully 
answered  in  the  death  of  Christ,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree. 

God's  elect,  i.  e.  those  whom  God  has  chosen;  see  v.  29. 
The  word  elect  is  sometimes  used  in  a  secondary  sense  for 
beloved,  which  idea  is  implied  in  its  literal  sense,  as  those 
chosen  are  those  who  are  peculiarly'bcloved.  This  sense  may 
be  given  to  it  in  1  Peter  2:  4,  "elect  and  precious"  may  be 

*  That  this  idea  is  expressed  by  the  preposition  tmsp  whenever  the  death  of 
Christ  is  spoken  of  as  being/or  men  cannot,  says  Koppe  on  this  passage,  bedoubted. 

f  Christus  non  nudus,  aut  inanis  ad  nos  missus  est;  sed  coelestibus  omnibus 
thesauris  refertus,  nequid  eum  possidentibus  ad  plenam  felicitatem  desit. — Calvin. 

46 


362  ROMANS  8:  29—39. 

*  beloved  and  precious;'  Col.  3:  12,  "  as  the  elect  of  God"  may 
be  equal  to  the  beloved  of  God.  But  there  is  not  a  single  pas- 
sage where  the  word  occurs,  in  which  it  may  not  be  under- 
stood in  its  proper  sense.  "  Many  are  called  and  few  chosen," 
Matt.  20:  16;  "for  the  elect's  sake,"  24:  22;  "the  chosen  of 
God,"  Luke  23:  35;  "according  to  the  faith  of  God's  elect," 
Tit.  1:  1;  1  Peter  1:  1,  2,  "elect  according  to  the  foreknow- 
ledge of  God;"  see  1  Pet.  2:  9.  Luke  18:  7,  and  every  other 
passage  in  which  the  word  occurs.  This  being  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  term,  and  that  which  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  scriptural  representation  of  men  under  the  Old  as  well 
as  New  Testament,  as  being  chosen  of  God  to  be  the  recipients  of 
peculiar  blessings,  it  ought  not  to  be  departed  from  here,  espe- 
cially as  the  context  renders  its  being  retained  necessary  to  the 
full  expression  of  the  apostle's  meaning.  The  persons  against 
whom,  he  says,  no  accusation  can  be  brought,  are  those  who 
were  chosen,  predestinated,  called  and  justified. 

It  is  God  that  justijieth.  This  and  the  corresponding 
phrases  in  the  next  verse  are  frequently  pointed  interrogatively, 
so  as  to  be  read  thus.  "  God  who  justifies  ?  Who  is  he  that  con- 
demneth  ?  Christ  who  died  ?  &c."  The  sense  is  the  same,  but 
the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage  is  thus  marred.  As  we  are 
all  to  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  God,  and  our  eternal  destiny 
is  to  depend  on  his  judgment,  if  he  acquits,  if  he,  for  Christ's 
sake,  pronounces  us  just,  then  we  are  secure. 

(34)  Who  is  he  that  conchmneth  ?  i.  e.  no  one  can  condemn. 
In  support  of  this  assertion  there  are,  in  this  verse,  four  conclu- 
sive reasons  presented;  the  death  of  Christ,  his  resurrection,  his 
exaltation  and  his  intercession.  //  is  Christ  that  died.  By 
his  death,  as  an  atonement  for  our  sins,  all  ground  of  condemna- 
tion is  removed.  Yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again.  The 
resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  evidence  of  the  sacrifice  of  his 
death  being  accepted,  and  of  the  validity  of  all  his  claims,  is  a 
much  more  decisive  proof  of  the  security  of  all  who  trust  in 
him  than  his  death  could  be.  Sec  on  ch.  1:4.  4:  25.  Acts 
17:  31.   1  Cor.  15:  17,  &c. 

Who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  i.  e.  is  associated 
with  God  in  his  universal  dominion.  Ps.  110:  l,"Sit  thou  on 
my  right  hand,"  i.  e.  share  my  throne;  Eph.  1:  20.  Rev.  3:21. 
"  Ag  I  also  overcame  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  his 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  363 

throne."  Heb.  1 :  3,  "  Who  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
majesty  on  high."  From  these  and  other  passages  in  their 
connexion,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  is  exalted  to  universal  do- 
minion, all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  into  his  hands. 
If  this  is  the  case  how  great  the  security  it  affords  the  believer! 
He  who  is  engaged  to  effect  his  salvation  is  the  director  of  all 
events,  and  of  all  worlds. 

Who  also  niaketh  intercession  for  us,  i.  e.  who  acts  as  our 
advocate,  pleads  our  cause  before  God,  presents  those  considera- 
tions which  secure  for  us  pardon  and  the  continued  supply  of  the 
divine  grace;  see  on  v.  26.  Heb.  7:  25.  9:  24.  1  John  2:  1.  He 
is  our  patron,  in  the  Roman  sense  of  the  word,  one  who  under- 
takes our  case;  an  advocate,  whom  the  Father  heareth  always. 
How  complete  then  the  security  of  those  for  whom  he  pleads  !* 
Of  course  this  language  is  figurative;  the  meaning  is,  that  Christ 
continues  since  his  resurrection  and  exaltation  to  secure  for  his 
people  the  benefits  of  his  death,  every  thing  comes  from  God 
through  him,  and  for  his  sake. 

(35)  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  This 
is  the  last  step  in  the  climax  of  the  apostle's  argument;  the 
very  summit  of  the  mount  of  confidence,  whence  he  looks  down 
on  his  enemies  as  powerless,  and  forward  and  upward  with  full 
assurance  of  a  final  and  abundant  triumph.  No  one  can  accuse, 
no  one  can  condemn,  no  one  can  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
Christ.  This  last  assurance  gives  permanency  to  the  value  of 
the  other  two. 

The  love  of  Christ  is  clearly  Christ's  love  towards  us,  and 
not  ours  towards  him.  The  latter  indeed  would  give  a  good 
sense,  '  Nothing  can  induce  us  to  give  up  our  love  to  the  Re- 
deemer.' But  this  interpretation  is  entirely  inconsistent  with 
the  context  and  the  drift  of  the  whole  chapter.  Paul  was 
speaking  of  the  great  love  of  God  towards  us  as  manifested  in 
the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  of  the  love  of  Christ  as  exhibited  in  his 
dying,  rising  and  interceding  for  us.  This  love,  which  is  so 
great,  he  says  is  unchangeable.     Besides,  the  apostle's  object  in 

*  Porro  hanc  intercessionem  carnali  sensu  ne  metriamur:  Non  enim  cogitan- 
dus  est  supplex,  flexis  genibus,  mambus  expansis  Patreni  deprecari :  sed  quia  appa- 
ret  ipse  assidue  cum  morte  et  reserrectione  sua,  quae  vice  sunt  aetemae  interces- 
sionis,  et  vivae  oralionis  efficaciam  habent,  ut  Patrem  nobis  concilient,  atque  exora- 
bilem  reddant,  merito  dicitur  intercedere. — Calvik.  m. 


364  ROMANS  8:  29— 39. 

the  whole  chapter  is  to  console  and  confirm  the  confidence  of  be- 
lievers. The  interpretation  just  mentioned  is  not  in  accordance 
with  this  object.  It  is  no  ground  of  confidence  to  assert  or  even 
to  feel  that  we  will  never  forsake  Christ,  but  it  is  the  strongest 
ground  of  assurance  to  be  convinced  that  his  love  will  never 
change.  And,  moreover,  verse  39  requires  this  interpretation; 
for  there  Paul  expresses  the  same  sentiment  in  language  which 
cannot  be  misunderstood.  "  No  creature,"  he  says,  "  shall  be 
able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus."     This  is  evidently  God's  love  towards  us. 

Shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  &c.*  This 
is  merely  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  idea.  Nothing 
shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  neither  tribulation, 
nor  distress,  nor  persecution,  &c.  That  is,  whatever  we  may 
be  called  upon  to  suffer  in  this  life,  nothing  can  deprive  us  of 
the  love  of  him  who  died  for  us,  and  who  now  lives  to  plead 
our  cause  in  heaven,  and,  therefore,  these  afflictions,  and  all 
other  difficulties,  are  enemies  we  may  despise. 

(36)  t/?5  it  is  written,  for  thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the 
day  long,  &c.  A  quotation  from  Ps,  44:  22,  agreeably  to  the 
LXX.  translation.  The  previous  verse  of  course  implied  that 
believers  should  be  exposed  to  many  afflictions,  to  famine, 
nakedness  and  the  sword;  this,  Paul  would  say,  is  in  accordance 
with  the  experience  of  the  pious  in  all  ages.  We  suffer,  as  it 
is  recorded  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  that  they  suflfered. 

(37)  Nay  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors^ 
&c.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  35th.  '  So  far  from 
these  afflictions  separating  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  they  are 
more  than  conquered.'  That  is,  they  are  not  only  deprived  of 
all  power  to  do  us  harm,  they  minister  to  our  good.  They 
swell  the  glory  of  our  victory.  Through  him  that  loved  us. 
The  triumph  which  the  apostle  looked  for,  was  not  to  be  effected 
by  his  own  strength  or  perseverance,  but  by  the  grace  and 
power  of  the  Redeemer.      1    Cor.   15:  10.  Gal.  2:  20.  Phil. 

*  Sicut  enim  ncliulac  quamvis  liquidum  solis  conspoctum  obscurcnt,  non  tamcn 
ejus  fulgore  in  totum  nos  privant:  sic  Deus  in  rebus  adversis  per  calijpnem  emittit 
gratiae  suae  radios,  nequa  tentatio  dcsperatione  nos  obruat :  imo  fides  nostra  pro- 
missionibus  Dei  tanquam  alis  fulta  sursum  in  coelos  per  media  obstacula  penetrarc 
debet. — Calvin. 

■j-  Wir  iibcrwindcn  weit. — LuTUiH, 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  365 

4:  13,  "lean  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengthen- 
eth  me." 

(38,  39)  In  these  verses  the  confidence  of  the  apostle  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  strongest  language.  He  heaps  words  together  in 
the  effort  to  set  forth  fully  the  absolute  inability  of  all  created 
things,  separately  or  united,  to  frustrate  the  purpose  of  God,  or 
to  turn  away  his  love  from  those  whom  he  has  determined  to 
save. 

For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death  nor  life,  &c.  &c. 
It  is  somewhat  doubtful  how  far  the  apostle  intended  to  express 
distinct  ideas  by  the  several  words  here  used.  The  enumera- 
tion is  by  some  considered  as  expressing  the  general  idea  that 
nothing  in  the  universe  can  injure  believers,  the  detail  being 
designed  merely  as  amplification.  This,  however,  is  not  very 
probable.  The  former  view  is  to  be  preferred.  Neither  death. 
That  is,  though  cut  off  in  this  world,  their  connexion  with 
Christ  is  not  thereby  destroyed.  "  They  shall  never  perish, 
neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,"  John  10:  28. 
Nor  life,  neither  its  blandishments,  nor  its  trials.  "  Whether 
we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord,  or  whether  we  die,  we  die 
unto  the  Lord.  So  that  living  or  dying  we  are  the  Lords," 
Rom.  14:  8. 

Nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers.  Principalities 
and  powers  are  by  many  understood  here  to  refer  to  the  au- 
thorities of  this  world  as  distinguished  from  angels.  But  to 
this  it  may  be  objected  that  Paul  frequently  uses  these  terms  in 
connexion  to  designate  the  different  orders  of  spiritual  beings, 
Eph.  1:  21.  Col.  1:  16;  and  secondly,  that  corresponding  terms 
were  in  common  use  among  the  Jews  in  this  sense.  It  is  pro- 
bable, from  the  nature  of  the  passage,  that  this  clause  is  to  be 
taken  generally,  without  any  specific  reference  to  either  good  or 
bad  angels  as  such.  '  No  superhuman  power,  no  angel,  how- 
ever mighty,  shall  ever  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God.'  Neither  things  present,  nor  things  to  come.  Nothing 
in  this  life,  nor  in  the  future;  no  present  or  future  event,  &c. 

(39)  Nor  height,  nor  depth.  These  words  have  been  very 
variously  explained.  That  interpretation  which  seems,  on  the 
whole,  most  consistent  with  scriptural  usage  and  the  context, 
is  that  which  makes  the  terms  equivalent  to  heaven  and  earth. 
'  Nothing  in  heaven  or  earth;'  see  Eph.  4:  8.  Is.  7:  U,  "Ask 


366  ROMANS  8:  29—39. 

it  either  in  the  depth  or  the  height  above,"  &c.  &c.  Nor  any 
other  creature.  Although  the  preceding  cnumeratiorbhad  been 
so  minute,  the  apostle,  as  if  to  prevent  despondency  having 
the  possibility  of  a  foot-hold,  adds  this  all-comprehending  spe- 
cification, no  created  thing  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the 
Jove  of  God.  This  love  of  God,  which  is  declared  to  be  thus 
unchangeable,  is  extended  towards  us  only  on  account  of  our 
connexion  with  Christ,  and  therefore  the  apostle  adds,  lohich 
is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord;  see  Eph.  1:6.2  Tim.  1 :  9. 

Doctrines. 

1.  God  chooses  certain  individuals  and  predestinates  them  to 
eternal  life.  The  ground  of  this  choice  is  his  own  sovereign 
pleasure;  the  end  to  which  the  elect  are  predestinated,  is  con- 
formity to  Jesus  Christ  in  his  moral  character,  and  in  his  suffer- 
ings and  glory,  v.  29. 

2.  Those  who  are  thus  chosen  shall  certainly  be  saved,  v.  30. 

3.  The  only  evidence  of  election  is  effectual  calling,  that  is, 
the  production  of  holiness.  And  the  only  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  call  and  the  certainty  of  our  perseverance,  is 
a  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  vs.  29,  30. 

4.  The  love  of  God,  and  not  human  merit  or  power,  is  the 
proper  ground  of  confidence.  This  love  is  infinitely  great,  as 
is  manifested  by  the  gift  of  God's  own  Son;  and  it  is  unchange- 
able, as  the  apostle  strongly  asserts,  vs.  31 — 39. 

5.  The  gift  of  Christ  is  not  the  result  of  the  mere  general 
love  of  God  to  the  human  family,  but  also  of  special  love  to  his 
own  people,  v.  32. 

6.  Hope  of  pardon  and  eternal  life  should  rest  on  the  death, 
the  resurrection,  universal  dominion  and  intercession  of  the 
Son  of  God,  V.  34. 

7.  Trials  and  afflictions  of  every  kind  have  been  the  portion 
of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages;  as  they  cannot  destroy  the 
love  of  Christ  towards  us,  they  ought  not  to  shake  our  love  to- 
wards him,  V.  35. 

8.  The  whole  universe,  with  all  that  it  contains,  as  far  as  it 
is  good,  is  the  friend  and  ally  of  the  Christian;  as  far  as  it  is 
evil,  it  is  a  more  than  conquered  foe,  vs.  35 — 39. 

9.  The  love  of  God,  infinite  and  unchangeable  as  it  is,  is 
manifested  to  sinners  only  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  v.  39. 


ROMANS  8:  29—39.  367 

Re7narks. 

1.  The  plan  of  redemption,  while  it  leaves  no  room  for  de- 
spondency, affords  no  pretence  for  presumption.  Those  whom 
God  loves  he  loves  unchangeahly ;  but  it  is  not  on  the  ground  of 
their  peculiar  excellence,  nor  can  this  love  be  extended  towards 
those  who  live  in  sin,  vs.  29 — 39. 

2.  As  there  is  a  beautiful  harmony  and  necessary  connexion 
between  the  several  doctrines  of  grace,  between  election,  pre- 
destination, calling,  justification  and  glorification,  so  must  there 
be  a  like  harmony  in  the  character  of  the  Christian.  He  can- 
not experience  the  joy  and  confidence  flowing  from  his  election, 
without  the  humility  which  the  consideration  of  its  being  gra- 
tuitous must  produce;  nor  can  he  have  the  peace  of  one  who  is 
justified,  without  the  holiness  of  one  who  is  called,  vs.  29,  30. 

3.  As  Christ  is  the  first  born  or  head  among  many  brethren, 
all  true  Christians  must  love  him  supremely,  and  each  other  as 
members  of  the  same  family.  Unless  we  have  this  love,  w-e 
do  not  belong  to  this  sacred  brotherhood,  v.  29. 

4.  If  the  love  of  God  is  so  great  and  constant,  it  is  a  great 
sin  to  distrust  or  doubt  it,  vs.  30 — 39. 

5.  Christians  may  well  hear  with  patience  and  equanimity 
the  unjust  accusations,  or  even  the  condemnatory  sentences  of 
the  wicked,  since  God  justifies  and  accepts  them.  It  is  a  small 
matter  to  be  judged  of  man's  judgment,  vs.  33,  34. 

6.  If  God  spared  not  his  own  Son,  in  order  to  effect  our 
salvation,  what  sacrifice  on  our  part  can  be  considered  great,  as 
a  return  for  such  love,  or  as  a  means  of  securing  the  salvation 
of  others,  v.  32. 

7.  The  true  method  to  drive  away  despondency  is  believing 
apprehensions  of  tlie  scriptural  grounds  of  hope,  viz.  the  love 
of  God,  the  death  of  Christ,  his  resurrection,  his  universal  do- 
minion and  his  intercession,  v.  34. 

8.  Though  the  whole  universe  were  encamped  against  the 
solitary  Christian,  he  would  still  come  off  more  than  conque- 
ror, vs.  35 — 39. 

9.  Afflictions  and  trials  are  not  to  be  fled  from  or  avoided, 
but  overcome,  v.  37. 

10.  All  strength  to  endure  and  to  conquer  comes  to  us  through 
him  that  loved  us.     Without  him  we  can  do  nothing,  v.  37. 


3G8  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

11.  How  wonderful,  how  glorious,  how  secure  is  the  gospel! 
Those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  are  as  secure  as  the  love  of  God, 
the  merit,  power  and  intercession  of  Christ  can  make  them. 
They  are  hedged  round  with  mercy.  They  are  enclosed  in  the 
arms  of  everlasting  love.  "  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  keep 
us  from  falling  and  to  present  us  faultless  before  the  presence  of 
his  glory  with  exceeding  joy;  to  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour, 
be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now  and  for- 
ever.    Amen!" 


CHAPTER  IX. 

With  the  eighth  chapter  the  discussion  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, and  of  its  immediate  consequences,  was  brought  to  a  close. 
The  consideration  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  commences  with  the  ninth,  and  extends 
to  the  end  of  the  eleventh.  Paul,  in  the  first  place,  shows 
that  God  may  consistently  reject  the  Jews,  and  extend  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign  to  the  Gentiles,  9:  1 — 24; 
and  in  the  second,  that  he  has  already  declared  that  such 
was  his  purpose,  vs.  25 — 29.  Agreeably  to  these  prophetic 
declarations,  the  apostle  announces  that  the  Jews  were  cast  off 
and  the  Gentiles  called;  the  former  having  refused  submission 
to  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  the  latter  having  been  obedient, 
vs.  30 — 33.  In  the  tenth  chapter,  Paul  shows  the  necessity  of 
this  rejection  of  the  ancient  people  of  God,  and  vindicates  the 
propriety  of  extending  the  invitation  of  the  gospel  to  the 
heathen  in  accordance  with  the  predictions  of  the  prophets.  In 
the  eleventh,  he  teaches  that  this  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
neither  total  nor  final.  It  was  not  total,  inasmuch  as  many 
Jews  of  that  generation  believed;  and  it  was  not  final,  as  tlie 
period  apj)roachcd  when  the  great  body  of  that  nation  should 
acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  be  reingrafted  into  their 
own  olive  tree. 

Contents. 
In  entering  on  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  apostle  assures 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  369 

his  brethren  that  he  was  led  to  entertain  this  opinion  from  no 
want  of  affection  or  respect  for  them  or  their  national  privileges, 
vs.  1 — 5.  That  his  doctrine  on  this  subject  was  true,  he  argues, 
1.  Because  it  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  promises  of  God, 
who  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours, 
vs.  6 — 24.  And  secondly,  because  it  was  distinctly  predicted 
in  their  own  scriptures,  vs.  25 — 29.  The  conclusion  from  this 
reasoning  is  stated  in  vs.  20 — 33.  The  Jews  are  rejected  for 
their  unbelief,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted  to  the  Messiah's 
kingdom. 

CHAP.  9:  1—5. 

Jinalysis. 
As  the  subject  about  to  be  discussed  was  of  all  others  the 
most  painful  and  offensive  to  his  Jewish  brethren,  the  apostle 
approaches  it  with  the  greatest  caution.  He  solemnly  assures 
them  that  he  was  grieved  at  heart  on  their  account;  and  that 
his  love  for  them  was  ardent  and  disinterested,  vs.  1 — 3.  Their 
peculiar  privileges  he  acknowledged  and  respected.  They  were 
highly  distinguished  by  all  the  advantages  connected  with  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  and,  above  all,  by  the  fact  that  the 
Messiah  was,  according  to  the  flesh,  a  Jew,  vs.  4,  5. 

Commentary. 
(1)  /  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  &c.  There  are 
three  ways  in  which  the  words  i7i  Christ,  or  by  Christ,  may 
here  be  understood.  1.  They  may  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
formula  of  an  oath,  /  say  the  truth,  by  Christ.  The  preposi- 
tion rendered  i}i  is  so  used  in  Matt.  5:  34,  &c.  Rev.  10:  6. 
But  in  these  and  similar  cases  it  is  always  in  connexion  with  a 
verb  of  swearing.  In  addition  to  this  objection,  it  may  be  urged 
that  no  instance  occurs  of  Paul's  appealing  to  Christ  in  the  form 
of  an  oath.  The  instance  which  looks  most  like  such  an  appeal 
is  1  Tim.  5:  21,  "  I  charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  elect  angels,  &:c."  But  it  is  evident  from  the 
mention  of  the  angels,  that  this  is  not  of  the  nature  of  an  oath. 
Paul  merely  wishes  to  urge  Timothy  to  act  as  in  the  presence 
of  God,  Christ  and  angels.  This  interpretation,  therefore,  is 
not  to  be  ajjproved.     2.  Tlie  words  in  Christ  may  be  con- 

47 


370  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

nected  with  the  pronoun  /.  '  I  in  Christ,  i.  e,  as  a  Christian, 
or,  '  In  the  consciousness  of  my  union  with  Christ,  I  declare, 
&c.'  So  the  words  are  used  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  "  You  in 
Christ,"  "  I  in  Christ,"  "  We  in  Christ,"  being  equivalent  with 
you,  I,  OYive,  as  Christians,  i.  e.  considered  as  united  to  Christ. 
See  1  Cor.  1 :  20,  "  Of  whom  are  ye  in  Christ,"  i.  e. '  By  whom 
ye  are  Christians,  or  united  to  Christ;'  Rom,  16:  3,  7,  9.  1  Cor. 
3:  1,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  3.  The  words  may  be  used 
adverbially,  and  be  translated  after  a  Christian  manner.  This 
also  is  a  frequent  use  of  this  and  analogous  phrases.  See  1  Cor. 
7:  39,  "  Only  in  the  Lord,"  i.  e.  only  after  a  religious  manner. 
Jifter  the  Lord  being  equivalent  with  in  a  manner  becojning, 
or  suited  to  the  Lord.  Rom.  16:  22,  "I  salute  you  in  the 
Lord."  Phil.  2:  29,  "Receive  him  therefore  in  the  Lord;" 
Eph.  6:  1.  Col.  3:  18.*  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  much  the 
same  whether  we  adopt  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  last  two 
modes  of  explanation.  Paul  means  to  say  that  he  speaks  in  a 
solemn  and  religious  manner,  as  a  Christian,  conscious  of  his 
intimate  relation  to  Christ. 

/  say  the  truth,  I  lie  not.  This  mode  of  assertion,  first 
affirmatively  and  then  negatively,  is  common  in  the  scriptures. 
"  Thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live,"  Is.  38:  1;  "  He  confessed  and 
denied  not,"  John  1:20.  My  conscience,  also  bearing  me 
witness  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  are  also  three  ways  in 
which  the  words  in  the  Holy  Ghost  may  be  connected  and 
explained.  1.  They  are  often  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
first  clause  and  standing  in  a  parallelism  with  the  words  in 
Christ,  and  being  also  an  oath.  But  in  this  way  the  construc- 
tion is  unnatural,  and  the  sense  not  only  unusual  but  revolting. 

2.  They  may  be  connected  with  the  words  bearing  me  ivit- 
7iess.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  My  conscience  beareth  me 
w^itness  together  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'  That  is,  not  only  my 
own  conscience,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  assures  me  of  m}^  sincerity. 

3.  They  may  be  connected  with  the  word  conscience.  '  My 
conscience  under  the  influence  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost ;'t  my  sanc- 
tified conscience.  There  seems  little  ground  of  preference  be- 
tween the  last  two;  either  gives  a  good  sense. 

*  See  Wahl's  Clavis,  p.  526.     Tlio  proposition  £v  is  used,  he  says,  De  norma 
cui  insistit  vel  quam  tenet  aliquis  in  agendo. 
f  Waul's  Clavis,  p.  523. 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  371 

(2)  That  I  have  great  heaviness,  &c.  This  it  is  which  Paul 
so  solemnly  asserts.  He  was  not  an  indifferent  spectator  of  the 
sorrow,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  was  about  to  come  on  his 
countrymen.  All  their  peculiar  national  advantages,  and  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  which  they  had  wickedly  re- 
jected, were  to  be  taken  away;  they  were,  therefore,  left  without 
hope  either  for  this  world  or  the  next.  The  consideration  of 
their  condition  filled  the  apostle  with  great  and  constant  heavi- 
ness. The  sincerity  and  strength  of  this  sorrow  for  them  he 
asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  in  the  next  verse. 

(3)  For  I  could  ivish  that  myself  ivere  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,  &c.  The  word  anathema,  which 
is  used  in  this  verse  by  the  apostle,  properly  means  something 
set  up  or  consecrated,  and  is  applied  frequently  to  votive  offer- 
ings. A  secondary  application  of  the  word  was  to  those  per- 
sons who  were  devoted  to  destruction  as  sacrifices  for  the  public 
good.  And  as,  among  the  Greeks,  the  lowest  and  vilest  of  the 
people  were  selected  for  that  purpose,  it  became  a  term  of  exe- 
cration, and  expressed  the  idea  of  exposure  to  divine  wrath.  In 
the  Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  to  which  it  answers,  oc- 
curs very  frequently,  and  probably  the  root  originally  meant  to 
cut  off,  to  separate.  Hence,  the  substantive  derived  from  it, 
meant  so/nething  separated  or  consecrated.  In  usage,  how- 
ever, it  was  applied  only  to  such  things  as  could  not  be  re- 
deemed,* and  which,  when  possessed  of  life,  were  to  be  put  to 
death.     It  is  evident  from  the  passages  quoted  in  the  margin, 

*  Lev.  27 :  28,  29,  "  No  devoted  thing  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto  the  Lord  of 
all  that  he  hath,  both  of  man  and  beast,  and  of  the  field  of  his  possession,  shall  be 
sold  or  redeemed:  every  devoted  thing  (Q';in  dvct&sjxa)  is  most  holy  unto  the 
Lord.  None  devoted,  which  shall  be  devoted  from  among  men,  shall  be  redeemed, 
but  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 

Deut.  7  :  26,  "  Neither  shalt  thou  bring  an  abomination  into  thy  house,  lest  thou 
be  a  cursed  thing  (dvctSsfJia)  like  it,  but  thou  shalt  utterly  detest  it,  and  utterly 
abhor  it ;  for  it  is  a  cursed  thing."  The  sacred  writer  is  here  speaking  of  the 
images,  &c.  of  the  heathen,  which  were  devoted  to  destruction. 

Joshua  6:  17,  "  And  the  city  shall  be  (dvccSsfJia)  accursed,  even  it  and  all  that 
is  therein,  to  the  Lord,  &c."  Verse  18,  "  And  ye,  in  any  wise  keep  yourselves 
from  the  accursed  thing,  lest  ye  make  yourselves  accursed,  when  ye  take  of  the 
accursed  thing,  and  make  the  camp  of  Israel  a  cjirse,  and  trouble  it." 

1  Sam.  15:  21,  "  And  the  people  took  of  the  spoil,  sheep  and  oxen,  the  chief  of 
the  things  -which  should  have  been  utterly  destroyed,  &c."  In  Hebrew,  simply 
D">nn  of  wliich  the  words  in  italics  are  a  paraphrase. 


372  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

that  the  word  usually  designates  a  person  or  thing  set  apart  to 
destruction  on  religious  grounds;  something  accursed. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  is  very 
nearly  the  same.  The  only  passages  in  which  it  occurs  besides 
the  one  before  us,  are  the  following;  Acts  23:  14,  "We  have 
bound  ourselves  under  a  great  curse,  (we  have  placed  ourselves 
under  an  anathema)  that  we  will  eat  nothing  until  we  have 
•slain  Paul."  The  meaning  of  this  passage  evidently  is,  '  We 
have  imprecated  on  ourselves  the  curse  of  God,  or  we  have 
called  upon  him  to  consider  us  as  anathema.'  1  Cor.  12:  3, 
■<'  No  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ealleth  Jesus  accursed 
(anathema);"  1  Cor.  16:  22,  "  Let  him  be  anathema maranatha;" 
'Gal.  1:  8,  9,  "  Let  him  be  accursed  (anathema)."  In  all  these 
cases  it  is  clear  that  the  word  is  applied  to  those  who  were  re- 
garded as  deservedly  exposed,  or  devoted  to  the  curse  of  God. 
In  this  sense  it  was  used  by  the  early  Christian  writers,  and 
from  them  passed  into  the  use  of  the  church.  "  Let  him  be 
anathema,"  being  the  constant  formula  of  pronouncing  any  one, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  church,  exposed  to  the  divine  maledic- 
tion. 

Among  the  later  Jews  this  word,  or  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
term,  was  used  in  reference  to  the  second  of  the  three  degrees 
into  which  they  divided  excommunication  (see  Buxtorf's  Rab- 
binical Lexicon).  But  no  analogous  use  of  the  word  occurs  in 
the  bible.  Such  being  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the  scrip- 
tures, its  application  in  this  case  by  the  apostle  admits  of  various 
explanations.  The  most  common  interpretations  of  the  passage 
are  the  following. 

1.  As  those  men  or  animals  pronounced  anathema  in  the  Old 
Testament  were  to  be  put  to  death,  many  consider  the  apostle 
as  having  that  idea  in  his  mind,  and  meaning  nothing  more  than 
^  I  could  wish  to  die  for  my  brethren,'  &c.  But  the  objections 
to  this  interpretation  are  serious.  1.  Even  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  word  expresses  generally  something  more  than  the 
idea  of  devotion  to  death.  An  anathema  was  a  person  devoted 
to  death  as  accursed;  see  the  passages  quoted  above.  And  in 
the  New  Testament  this  latter  idea  is  always  Ihc  prominent  one. 
2.  The  connexion  is  unfavourable  to  this  interpretation.  The 
phrase  is,  "  accursed  ^/rom  C/u^ist."  How  are  the  words  from 
Christ  to  be  explained  .''    Some  say  they  should  be  rendered  bi/ 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  373 

Christ.  '  I  could  wish  myself  devoted  to  death  by  Christ.'  But 
this  is  an  unusual  use  of  the  preposition  (a-Tro)  which  our  version 
correctly  renders  from;  and  the  whole  expression  is  besides 
unusual  and  unnatural.  Others,  therefore,  say  that  the  passage 
should  be  rendered  thus,  '  I  could  wish  from  Christ,  that  I 
might  be  devoted  to  death.'  But  this,  too,  is  an  unusual  and 
forced  construction. 

2.  Others  think  that  Paul  has  reference  here  to  the  Jewish 
use  of  the  word,  and  means  only  that  he  would  be  willing  to 
be  cut  off  from  the  church  or  excommunicated.  In  this  view 
the  word  Christ  is  commonly  taken  for  the  body  of  Christ  or 
the  church.  But,  in  the  first  place.  Ibis  is  not  a  scriptural  use 
of  the  word  anathema,  and  is  clearly  inapplicable  to  the  other 
cases  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  apostle;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  it  gives  a  very  inadequate  sense.  Excommunication  from 
the  church  would  not  be  a  great  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews. 

3.  Others  render  the  verb  which,  in  our  version,  is  translated 
'  I  could  wish,'  I  did  ivish.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  I  have 
great  sorrow  on  account  of  my  brethren,  because  I  can  sympa- 
thize in  their  feelings,  for  I  myself  once  wished  to  be  accursed 
from  Christ  on  their  account.'  But,  in  the  first  place,  had  Paul 
intended  to  express  this  idea  he  would  have  used  the  aorist, 
the  common  tense  of  narration,  and  not  the  imperfect.*  2.  It 
is  no  objection  to  the  common  translation,  that  the  imperfect  in- 
dicative, instead  of  some  form  of  the  optative,  is  here  used,  and 
that  too  without  an  optative  particle;  for  such  cases  are  common,t 
e.  g.  Acts  25:  22.  3.  This  interpretation  does  not  give  a  sense 
pertinent  to  the  apostle's  object.  He  is  not  expressing  what 
was  his  state  of  mind  formerly,  but  what  it  was  when  writing. 
It,  was  no  proof  of  his  love  for  his  brethren  that  he  once  felt  as 
they  then  did,  but  the  highest  imaginable,  if  the  ordinary  inter- 
pretation be  adopted.  4.  The  language  will  hardly  admit  of 
this  interpretation.  No  Jew  would  express  his  hatred  of  Christ 
and  his  indifference  to  the  favours  which  he  offered,  by  saying, 
he  washed  himself  accursed  from  Christ.  Paul  never  so  wished 
himself  before  his  conversion,  for  this  supposes  that  he  recog- 
nized the  power  of  Christ  to  inflict  on  him  the  imprecated 
curse,  and  that  his  displeasure  was  regarded  as  a  great  evil. 

*  That  is,  riii^aiiriv  iroTS  instead  of  '»]Jp^o/jLr,v. — Noesselt. 
f  Matthiae's  Grammar,  sect.  .508. 


374  ROMANS  9:1—5. 

4.  The  common  interpretation,  and  tliat  which  seems  most 
natural,  is,  '  I  am  grieved  at  heart  for  my  brethren,  for  I  could 
wish  myself  accursed  from  Christ,  that  is,  I  could  be  willing  to 
be  regarded  and  treated  as  anathema,  a  thing  accursed,  for  their 
sakes.'*  That  this  interpretation  suits  the  force  and  meaning  of 
the  words  and  is  agreeable  to  the  context,  must,  on  all  hands, 
be  admitted.  The  only  objection  to  it  is  of  a  theological  kind. 
It  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  apostle's  character  to 
wish  that  he  should  be  accursed  from  Christ.  But  to  this  it 
may  be  answered,  1.  Paul  does  not  say  that  he  did  deliberately 
and  actually  entertain  such  a  wish.  The  expression  is  evidently 
hypothetical  and  conditional,  'I  could  wish,  were  the  thing  al- 
lowable, possible  or  proper.'  So  far  from  saying  he  actu- 
ally desired  to  be  thus  separated  from  Christ,  he  impliedly  says 
the  very  reverse.  '  I  could  wish  it,  were  it  not  wrong;  or,  did 
it  not  involve  my  being  unholy  as  well  as  miserable,  but  as  such 
is  tiie  case,  the  desire  cannot  be  entertained.'  This  is  the  pro- 
per force  of  the  imperfect  indicative  when  thus  used;  it  implies 
the  presence  of  a  condition  which  is  known  to  be  impossible.t 
2.  Even  if  the  words  expressed  more  than  they  actually  do, 
and  the  apostle  were  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  he  could 
wish  to  be  cut  oil'  from  Christ,  yet,  from  the  nature  of  the  pas- 
sage, it  could  fairly  be  understood  as  meaning  nothing  more 
than  that  he  was  willing  to  suffer  the  utmost  misery  for  the  sake 
of  his  brethren.  The  difficulty  arises  from  pressing  the  words 
too  far,  making  them  express  definite  ideas,  instead  of  strong 
and  indistinct  emotions.  The  general  idea  is,  that  he  considered 
himself  as  nothing,  and  his  happiness  as  a  matter  of  no  moment, 
in  view  of  the  salvation  of  his  brethren.  1 


*  Scnsus  est:  opUibam  Judacoruni  miscriam  in  incum  caput  conferre,  et  illorum 
loco  esse.     Judaei,  fidoin  rcputliantcs,  eraiit  anatliciiui  a  Christo. — Bkngel. 

"}■  Buttmaxn's  Larger  Gramniar,  by  Prof.  Kohiiison,  p.  187.  Matthiae,  sect. 
508,  509.  And  Winkh's  Gramniar,  p.  233,  who  thus  translates  the  passage  lie- 
fore  us,  "  Vellcm  ego  (si  fieri  posset):  ich  wliiischte  (wenn  es  nur  nicht  unmoglich 
ware).  Tholuck  says,  "The  indicative  of  the  imperfect  expresses  exactly  the  im- 
possibility of  that  for  wliich  one  wishes,  on  which  account  it  is  not,  properly  speak- 
ing, really  wished  at  all.  The  optative  admits  the  possibihty  of  the  thing  wished 
for,  and  the  present  supposes  the  certainty  of  it." 

i  Utrum  privationeni  duntaxat  omnis  boni,  ct  destructionem  vel  annihilationem 
sui,  an  etiam  perpessionem  omnis  mali,  eamque  et  in  corpore  et  in  anima,  et  sem- 
piternani,  optarct,  aut  in  ipso  voti  illius  paroxysnio  intcllectui  sue  observanteni  ha- 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  375 

(4)  The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  introduction  to  this  chap- 
ter, contained  in  the  first  five  verses,  is  to  assure  the  Jews  of 
his  love  and  of  his  respect  for  their  peculiar  privileges.  The 
declaration  of  his  love  he  had  just  made,  his  respect  for  their 
advantages  is  expressed  in  the  enumeration  of  them  contained 
in  this  verse.  IVho  are  Israelites,  i.  e.  the  peculiar  people  of 
God.  This  includes  all  the  privileges  which  are  afterwards 
mentioned.  The  word  Israel  means  one  who  contends  with 
God,  or  a  prince  ivith  God.  Hos.  12:  3,  "  He  took  his  brother 
by  the  heel  in  the  womb,  and  by  his  strength  he  had  power 
with  God."  As  it  was  given  to  Jacob  as  an  expression  of  God's 
peculiar  favour.  Gen,  32:  28,  its  application  to  his  descendants 
implied  that  they,  too,  were  the  favourites  of  God.  To  ivhoni 
pertaineth  the  adoption.  As  Paul  is  speaking  here  of  the 
external  or  natural  Israel,  the  adoption  or  sonship  which  per- 
tained to  them,  as  such,  must  be  external  also,  and  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  he  had  spoken  of  in  the  preceding 
chapter.  They  were  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.  the  objects  of  his 
peculiar  favour,  selected  from  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  the 
recipients  of  peculiar  blessings,  and  to  stand  in  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  God.  Ex.  4:  22,  "  Thou  shalt  say  unto  Pharoah,  Israel 
is  my  son,  even  my  first  born;"  Deut.  14:  1,  "  Ye  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Lord  your  God;"  Jer.  31:  9,  "I  am  a  father  to 
Israel,  and  Ephraim  is  my  first  born." 

Jlnd  the  glory.  These  words  are  variously  explained. 
They  may  be  connected  with  the  preceding,  as  explanatory  of 
the  adoption  or  as  qualifying  it,  and  the  two  words  be  equiva- 
lent to  glorious  adoption.  But  as  every  other  specification  in 
this  verse  is  to  be  taken  separately,  so  should  this  be.  In  the 
Old  Testament  that  symbolical  manifestation  of  the  divine  pre- 
sence which  filled  the  tabernacle  and  rested  over  the  ark,  is 
called  the  glory  of  the  Lord.  Ex.  40:  34,  "  A  cloud  covered 
the  tent  of  the  congregation;  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled 
the  tabernacle;"  Ex.  29:  43,  "  There  will  I  meet  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  the  tabernacle  shall  be  sanctified  by  my 
glory;"  Lev.  16:  2,  "  I  will  appear  in  the  cloud  upon  the  mercy 
seat;"  1  Kings  8:  11,  "  The  glory  of  the  Lord  had  filled  the 
house  of  the  Lord;"  2  Chron.  5:  14.   Hag.  2:  7.   Rev.   15:  8. 

buerit,  quis  scit,  an  Paulus  ipse  interrogatus  definiret  1   Ccrte  illud  ego  pcnitus 
apud  ilium  in  jiaubu  crat :  taiituni  alios,  honoris  diviui  causa,  spcctabat. — Bengel. 


376  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

By  the  Jews  this  syml)ol  was  called  the  Shekinah,  i.  e.  the  pre- 
sence of  God.  Besides  this,  the  manifestation  of  God's  presence 
in  general  is  called  his  glory;  Is.  6:4,  "  The  whole  earth  is 
full  of  his  glory,"  &c.  It  is  prohahle,  therefore,  that  Paul  in- 
tended by  this  word  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  God  dwelt  in  a 
peculiar  manner  among  the  Jews,  and  in  various  ways  mani- 
fested his  presence,  as  one  of  their  peculiar  privileges. 

The  covenants.  The  plural  is  used  because  God  at  various 
times  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Jews  and  their  forefathers; 
by  which  he  secured  to  them  innumerable  blessings  and  privi- 
leges; see  Gal.  3:  16,  17.  Eph.  2:  12.  The  giving  of  the  law, 
('/)  vofAoSsJia)  the  legislation.  The  word  is  sometimes  used  for 
the  laiv  itse/f  {see  the  Lexicons);  it  may  here  be  taken  strictly, 
that  giving  of  the  lata,  i.e.  the  solemn  and  glorious  annunciation 
of  the  divine  will  from  Mount  Sinai.  The  former  is  the  most 
probable;  because  the  possession  of  the  law  was  the  grand  dis- 
tinction of  the  Jews,  and  one  on  which  they  peculiarly  relied; 
see  ch.  2:  17.  The  service  means  the  whole  ritual,  the  pom- 
pous and  impressive  religious  service  of  the  tabernacle  and 
temple.  The  pro?nises  relate,  no  doubt,  specially  to  the  pro- 
mises of  Christ  and  his  kingdom.  This  was  the  great  inheri- 
tance of  the  nation.  This  was  the  constant  subject  of  gratulation 
and  object  of  hope.  See  Gal.  3:  16,  "  Now  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  the  promises  made;"  v.  21,  "  Is  the  law  against 
the  promises  of  God?"  So  in  other  places  the  word  promises 
is  used  specially  for  the  predictions  in  reference  to  the  great  re- 
demption. Acts  26:  6. 

(5)  JVhose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning 
the  flesh,  Christ  came,  &c.  The  descent  of  the  Jews  from 
men  so  highly  favoured  of  God  as  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
was  justly  regarded  as  a  great  distinction.  And  of  whom.  The 
and  here  shows  that  whom  refers,  not  to  the  fathers,  but  to  the 
Israelites,  to  whom  pertained  the  adoption,  the  law,  the  service, 
and  of  whom  Christ  came.  This  was  the  great  honour  of  the 
Jewish  race.  For  this  they  were  separated  as  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple, and  preserved  amidst  all  their  afflictions.  As  it  was  true, 
however,  only  in  one  sense,  that  Christ  was  descended  from  the 
Israelites,  and  as  there  was  another  view  of  his  person,  accord- 
ing to  which  he  was  infinitely  exalted  above  them  and  all  other 
men,  the  apostle  qualifies  his  declaration  by  saying  as  concern- 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  377 

ins;  the  flesh.  The  word  flesh  is  used  so  often  for  human  na- 
ture in  its  present  state,  or  for  men,  that  the  phrase  as  to  the 
flesh,  in  such  connexions,  evidently  means  in  as  far  as  he  was 
a  inan,  or  as  to  his  human  nature,  ch.  1:3.  In  like  manner, 
when  it  is  said  Christ  was  manifested  or  came  in  the  flesh,  it 
means,  he  came  in  our  nature,  1  Tim,  3:  16.  1  John  4:  2,  &c. 

Who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.  Jimen,*  There  is 
but  one  interpretation  of  this  important  passage  which  can,  with 
the  least  regard  to  the  rules  of  construction,  be  maintained, 
Paul  evidently  declares  that  Christ  who,  he  had  just  said,  was, 
as  to  his  human  nature,  or  as  a  man,  descended  from  the  Israel- 
ites, is,  in  another  respect,  the  supreme  God,  or  God  over  all, 
and  blessed  for  ever.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage 
is  evident  from  the  following  reasons.  1.  The  relative  who 
must  agree  with  the  nearest  antecedent.  There  is  no  other 
subject  in  the  context  sufficiently  prominent  to  make  a  depar- 
ture from  this  ordinary  rule,  in  this  case,  even  plausible.  "  Of 
whom  Christ  came,  who  is,  &c."  Who  is  ?  Certainly  Christ, 
as  every  one  must  acknowledge.!  2.  The  context  requires  thiS' 
interpretation,  because,  as  Paul  was  speaking  of  Christ,  it  would 
be  very  unnatural  thus  suddenly  to  change  the  subject  and  break 
out  into  a  doxology  to  God.  Frequently  as  the  pious  feelings 
of  the  apostle  led  him  to  use  such  exclamations  of  praise,  he 
never  does  it  except  when  God  is  the  immediate  subject  of  dis- 
course. See  ch.  1 :  25,  "  Who  worship  and  serve  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore;'^  Gal.  1:  5. 
2  Cor.  11:  31.  Besides,  it  was  the  very  object  of  the  apostle 
to  set  forth  the  great  honour  to  the  Jews  of  having  Christ  born, 
among  them,  and  this,  of  course,  would  lead  to  his  presenting, 

*  On  this  passage,  see  Prof.  Stuart's  able  Letters  to  Dr.  Charming.  Noes-- 
selt's  Opuscula,  Fasciculus  I.  p.  158,  seqq.  Flatt,  Tholuck,  and  other  critical 
commentators. 

As  this  is  one  of  the  most  explicit  and  incontrovertible  passages  in  support  of  the 
deity  of  Christ,  it  is  a  matter  of  thankfulness  that  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  reason 
for  doubting  the  accuracy  of  the  reading.  All  the  MSS.,  all  the  versions  and  fa- 
thers give  the  passage  precisely  as  in  the  common  text.  See  Mill's  note  in  his 
New  Testament. 

j-  The  phrase  5  wv  is  used  here  for  oj  sffTi,  as  in  John  1:  18,  o  tlv  £(g  tov  xoXffov 
<roCi  flrar^og;  3 :  13,  6  iliv  sv  tw  ou^avw;  2  Cor.  11:  31,  o  cjv  £uXoy>)Tog  sig  roug 
aicjvag,  the  very  words  which  occur  in  the  text.  In  all  these  cases,  too,  it  will  be 
obiserved,  that  the  6  wu  refeis  to  the  immediate  antecedent. 

43 


578  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

the  dignity  of  the  Redeemer  in  the  strongest  light.     For  the 
greater  he  was,  tlie  greater  tlie  honour  to  those  of  whose  race 
he  came.     3.  The  antithesis,  which   is  evidently  implied  be- 
tween the  two  clauses  of  the  verse,  is  in  favour  of  this  interpre- 
tation.    Christ,  according  to  the  flesh,  was  an  Israelite,  but,  ac- 
cording to  his  higlicr  nature,  the  supreme  God.     See  the  strik- 
ingly analogous  passage  in   ch.  1 :  3,  4,  where  Christ  is  said, 
according  to  one  nature,  to  be  the  Son  of  David,  according  to 
the  other,  the  Son  of  God.     4.  No  other  interpretation  is  at 
all  consistent  with  the  grammatical  construction,  or  the  relative 
position  of  the  words.     One  proposed  by  Erasmus  is  to  place 
a  full  stop  after  the  words  Christ  ccnne,  and  make  all  the  rest 
of  the  verse  refer  to  God.     The  passage  would  then  read  thus, 
"  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came.     God  blessed 
for  ever.     Amen."     But  this  is  not  only  opposed  by  the  rea- 
sons already  urged,  that  such   doxologies  suppose  God   to   be 
the  immediate  subject  of  discourse,  or  are  preceded  by  some 
particle  which  breaks  the  connexion,  and  shows  plainly  what 
the  reference  is,  &c. ;  but,  apart  from  these  objections,  no  such 
doxology  occurs  in  all  the  bible.     That  is,  the  uniform  expres- 
sion is,  "Blessed  be  God,"  and  never  "God  be  blessed."*    The 
word  for  blessed  always  stands  first,  and  the  word  for  God  after 
it  with  the  article.     Often  as  such  cases  occur  in  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  scriptures,  there  is,  it  is  believed,  no  case  of  the  con- 
trary arrangement.  In  Psalm  68: 20(Septuagint  67:  19), the  only 
apparent  exception,  the  first  clause  is  probably  not  a  doxology, 
but  a  simple  afiirmation  as  in  the  Old  Latin  version,  Doyninus 
Deus  benedictus  est.     In  the  Hebrew  it  is,  as  in  all  other  cases, 
Blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  so  in  our  version  of  that  Psalm.     See 
also,  Ps.  31:21.  72:  18,  19.  41:  13.  68:  35.  89:  52.  Gen.  9:  26. 
Ex.  18:  10,  and  a  multitude  of  other  examples.     In  all  these 
and  similar  passages,  the  expression   is  blessed   be    God,   or 
blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  never  God  blessed,  or  Lord  blessed. 
This  being  the  case,  it  is  altogether  incredible,  that  Paul,  whose 
ear  must  have  been  perfectly  familiar  with  this  constantly  re- 
curring formula  of  praise,  should,  in  this  solitary  instance,  have 
departed  from  the  established  usage.     This  passage,  therefore, 

•  In  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  the  constant  form  of  the  doxology  is 

i\jkQyy\T%  6  ©Sog,  or  £uXoyr)Tcs  xJ^iog  6  0£oj,  never  the  reverse.     And  so  in 
Hebrew,  always  T\'^T\-  ^03 


ROMANS  9:  1—5.  379 

cannot  be  considered  as  a  doxology,  or  an  ascription  of  praise  to 
God,  and  rendered  God  be  blessed,  but  must  be  taken  as  a 
declaration,  who  is  blessed;  see  ch.  1 :  25,  "  The  Creator,  who  is 
blessed  for  ever."  2  Cor.  11:  31,  "The  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore."  A 
second  method  of  pointing  the  verse,  also,  proposed  by  Erasmus, 
and  followed  by  many  others,  is  to  place  the  pause  after  the 
word  all.  The  verse  would  then  read,  "  Of  whom,  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all.  God  be  blessed 
for  ever."  This  avoids  some  of  the  difficulties  specified  above, 
but  it  is  subject  to  all  the  others.  It  breaks  unnaturally  the 
connexion,  and  makes  a  doxology  out  of  a  form  of  expression 
which,  in  the  scriptures,  as  just  stated,  is  never  so  used. 
5.  There  is  no  reason  for  thus  torturing  the  text  to  make  it  speak 
a  different  language  from  that  commonly  ascribed  to  it;  because 
the  sense  afforded,  according  to  the  common  interpretation, 
is  scriptural,  and  in  perfect  accordance  with  other  declarations 
of  this  apostle.  Titus  1:  3,  "According  to  the  commandment 
of  God  our  Saviour,"  "Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and 
the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and  (even)  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,"  Tit.  2:  13;  see  Phil.  2:  6.  Col.  2:  9,  &c.  &c. 

Over  all  is  equivalent  with  7nost  high,  supreme.  The  same 
words  occur  in  Eph.  '4:  6,  "  One  God,  who  is  above  all."  This 
passage,  therefore,  shows  that  Christ  is  God  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  word.*  Amen  is  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  true.  It 
is  used  as  in  the  New  Testament  often  adverbially,  and  is  ren- 
dered verily;  or,  at  the  close  of  a  sentence,  as  expressing  desire, 
let  it  be,  or  merely  approbation.  It  does  not,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily imply  that  the  clause  to  which  it  is  attached  contains  a 
wish.  It  is  used  here,  as  in  Rom.  1 :  25,  for  giving  a  solemn 
assent  to  what  has  been  said.  "  God  who  is  blessed  for  ever. 
Amen."     '  To  this  declaration  we  say.  Amen.     It  is  true.' 

Doctrines. 
1.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  ever  present  with  the  souls  of  the  people 
of  God.    He  enlightens  the  judgment  and  guides  the  conscience, 
so  that  the  true  and  humble  Christian  often  has  an  assurance  of 

*  'O  tVj  ■n-avTWV  ©Sog  is,  in  the  writings  of  the  Greek  fathers,  the  constantly 
occurring  expression  for  the  supreme  God. 


380  ROMANS  9:  1—5. 

his  sincerity  and  of  the  correctness  of  what  he  says  or  does, 
above  what  the  powers  of  nature  can  bestow,  v,  1. 

2.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  sacrifice  whicli  one  man  may  malvC 
for  the  benefit  of  others,  except  that  which  liis  duty  to  God 
imposes,  v.  3. 

3.  Paul  does  not  teach  that  we  should  be  willing  to  be 
damned  for  the  glory  of  God.  1.  His  very  language  implies 
that  such  a  wish  would  be  improper.  For  in  the  ardour  of  his 
disinterested  affection,  he  does  not  himself  entertain  or  express 
the  wish,  but  merely  says,  in  effect,  that  were  it  proper  or  pos- 
sible, he  would  be  willing  to  perish  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren. 
2.  If  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  how  can  it  be 
right  to  wish  to  be  evil  that  good  may  come  ?  3.  There  seems 
to  be  a  contradiction  involved  in  the  very  terms  of  the  wish. 
Can  one  love  God  so  much  as  to  wish  to  hate  him  ?  Can  he  be 
so  good  as  to  desire  to  be  bad  ?  We  must  be  willing  to  give  up 
houses  and  lands,  parents  and  brethren,  and  our  life  also,  for 
Christ  and  his  kingdom,  but  we  are  never  required  to  give  up 
holiness  for  his  sake,  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction. 

4.  It  is,  in  itself,  a  great  blessing  to  belong  to  the  external 
people  of  God,  and  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges  consequent  on 
this  relation,  v.  4. 

5.  Jesus  Christ  is  at  once  man  and  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
for  ever.  Paul  asserts  this  doctrine  in  language  too  plain  to  be 
misunderstood,  v.  5. 

]ie77ia}'ks. 

1.  Whatever  we  say  or  do,  should  he  said  or  done  as  in 
Christ,  i.  e.  in  a  Christian  manner,  v.  1. 

2.  If  we  can  view,  unmoved,  the  perishing  condition  of  our 
fellow  men,  or  are  unwilling  to  make  sacrifices  for  their  bene- 
fit, we  are  very  different  from  Paul,  and  from  him  who  wept 
over  Jerusalem,  and  died  for  our  good  upon  Mount  Calvary, 
vs.  2,  3. 

3.  Though  we  may  belong  to  the  true  church,  and  enjoy  all 
its  privileges,  we  may  still  be  cast  away.  Our  external  relation 
to  the  people  of  God  cannot  secure  our  salvation,  v.  4. 

4.  A  pious  parentage  is  a  great  distinction  and  blessing,  and 
should  be  felt  and  acknowledged  as  such,  v.  5. 

5.  If  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  if  he  has  a  nature 


ROMANS  9:  G— 24.  381 

like  our  own,  how  intimate  the  union  between  him  and  his 
jDCople;  how  tender  the  relation;  how  unspeakable  the  honour 
done  to  human  nature  in  having  it  thus  exalted!  If  Jesus  Christ 
is  God  over  all  and  blessed  for  ever,  how  profound  should  be 
our  reverence,  how  unreserved  our  obedience,  and  how  entire 
and  joyful  our  confidence!  v.  5. 

6.  These  five  verses,  the  introduction  to  the  three  following 
chapters,  teach  us  a  lesson  which  we  have  before  had  occasion 
to  notice.  Fidelity  does  not  require  that  we  should  make  the 
truth  as  offensive  as  possible.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  bound 
to  endeavour,  as  Paul  did,  to  allay  all  opposing  or  inimical 
feelings  in  the  minds  of  those  whom  we  address,  and  to  allow 
the  truth,  unimpeded  by  the  exhibition  of  any  thing  offensive 
on  our  part,  to  do  its  work  upon  the  heart  and  conscience. 


CHAP.  9:  6—24. 

%/Inalysis. 

The  apostle  now  approaches  the  subject  which  lie  had  in  view, 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  That 
God  had  determined  to  cast  off  his  ancient  covenant  people, 
as  such,  and  to  extend  the  call  of  the  gospel  indiscriminately  to 
all  men,  is  the  point  which  the  apostle  is  about  to  establisli. 
He  does  this  by  showing,  in  the  first  place,  that  God  is  per- 
fectly free  thus  to  act,  vs.  6 — 24,  and  in  the  second,  that  he  had 
declared  in  the  prophets,  that  such  was  his  intention,  vs.  25 — 33. 

That  God  was  at  liberty  to  reject  the  Jews  and  to  call  the 
Gentiles,. Paul  argues,  1.  By  showing  that  the  promises  which 
he  had  made  and  by  which  he  had  graciously  bound  himself, 
were  not  made  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such, 
but  to  his  spiritual  seed.  This  is  plain  from  the  case  of  Ish- 
mael  and  Isaac;  both  were  the -children  of  Abraham,  yet  one 
was  taken  and  the  other  left.  And  also  from  the  case  of  Esau 
and  Jacob.  Though  children  of  the  same  parents,  and  born  at 
one  birth,  yet  "  Jacob  have  I  loved  and  Esau  have  I  hated," 
is  the  language  of  God  respecting  them,  vs.  6 — 13.  2.  By 
showing  that  God  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of 
his  favours;  that  he  is  determined  neither  by  the  external  re- 
lations, nor  by  the  personal  character  of  men,  in  the  selection 


382  ROMANS  9:  G— 24. 

of  the  objects  of  his  mercy.  .This  is  proved  by  the  examples 
just  referred  to;  by  the  choice  of  Isaac  instead  of  Ishmael,  and 
especially  by  that  of  Jacob  instead  of  Esau.  In  this  case  the 
choice  was  made  and  announced  before  the  birth  of  the  children, 
that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  according  to  works,  but 
according  to  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God,  vs.  6 — 13. 

Against  this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  there  are  two 
obvious  objections,  which  have  been  urged  in  every  age  of  the 
world,  and  which  the  apostle  here  explicitly  states  and  answers. 
The  first  is,  it  is  unjust  in  God  thus  to  choose  one,  and  reject 
another,  at  his  mere  good  pleasure,  v.  14.  To  this  Paul  gives 
two  answers;  1.  God  claims  the  prerogative  oi sovereign  mercy; 
saying, "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,"  vs.  15 
— 16;  2.  He  exercises  this  right,  as  is  evident  from  the  case  of 
Pharaoh,  with  regard  to  whom  he  says,  "  For  this  same  purpose 
have  I  raised  thee  up,"  vs.  17 — IS.  The  second  objection  is, 
if  this  doctrine  be  true,  it  destroys  the  responsibility  of  men,  v. 
19.  To  this  also  Paul  gives  a  twofold  answer;  1.  The  very 
urging  of  an  objection  against  a  prerogative  which  God  claims 
in  his  word,  and  exercises  in  his  providence,  is  an  irreverent 
contending  with  our  maker,  especially  as  the  right  in  question 
necessarily  arises  out  of  the  relation  between  men  and  God  as 
creatures  and  Creator,  vs.  20,  21.  2.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
exercise  of  this  sovereignty  inconsistent  with  either  justice  or 
mercy.  God  only  punishes  the  wicked  for  their  sins,  while 
he  extends  undeserved  mercy  to  the  objects  of  his  grace. 
There  is  no  injustice  done  to  one  wicked  man  in  the  par- 
don of  another,  especially  as  there  are  the  highest  olijects  to 
be  accomplished  both  in  the  punishment  of  the  vessels  of 
wrath,  and  the  pardon  of  the  vessels  of  mercy.  God  docs 
nothing  more  than  exercise  a  right  inherent  in  sovereignty,  viz. 
that  of  dispensing  pardon  at  his  pleasure,  vs.  22 — 24. 

Commentary, 
[pj  It  has  already  been  remarked  (ch.  3:  3),  that  it  was  a 
common  opinion  among  the  Jews,  that  the  promises  of  God 
being  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  all  connected  wilh  him 
as  his  natural  descendants,  and  scaled,  as  such,  by  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision, would  certainly  inlieril  tlie  blessings  of  the  Mes- 
siah's reign.     It  was  enough  for  them,  therefore,  to  be  able  to 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  383 

say,  "We  have  Abraham  to  our  father."  This  being  the 
case,  it  was  obvious  that  it  woukl  at  once  be  presented  as  a  fatal 
objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews, 
that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  promises  of  God.  Paul,  there- 
fore, without  even  distinctly  announcing  the  position  which  he 
intended  to  maintain,  removes  this  preliminary  objection.*  In 
vs.  2,  3,  in  which  he  professed  his  sorrow  for  his  brethren  and 
his  readiness  to  suffer  for  them,  it  was,  of  course,  implied  that 
they  were  no  longer  to  be  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  heirs  of 
the  promises,  &c.  &c.  This,  Paul  shows,  involves  no  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  divine  promises.  A^ot  as  though  the  ivorcl 
of  God  hath  taken  none  effect,  &c.  That  is,  'I  say  nothing 
which  implies  that  the  word  of  God  has  failed. 't  The  word  of 
God  means  any  thing  which  God  has  spoken,  and  here,  from 
the  connexion,  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  including  the 
promise  of  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ.  Hath  taken 
none  effect,  literally,  hath  fallen,  i.  e.  failed.  "  It  is  easier  for 
heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail," 
literally,  to  fall,  Luke  IG:  17.  So  this  word  is  used  frequently. 
The  reason  why  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  involved  no  kvilure 
on  the  part  of  the  divine  promise,  is,  that  the  promise  never 
contemplated  the  mere  natural  descendants  of  Abraham.  For 
they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel,  i.  e.  all  the  natural 
descendants  of  the  patriarch  are  not  the  true  people  of  God,  to 
whom  alone  tlie  promises  properly  belong. 

*  It  is  indeed  peculiarly  worthy  of  remark,  as  characteristic  of  the  apostle's  ten- 
derness and  caution,  that  he  does  not  at  all  formally  declare  the  truth  which  he  la- 
l)Oin"s  in  this  chapter  to  establish.  He  does  not  tell  the  Jews  at  once  they  were  to 
lie  cast  ofl';  but  begins  by  professing  his  affection  for  them,  and  his  sorrow  for  their 
destiny ;  thus  simply,  by  implication,  informing  them  that  they  were  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  When  he  has  shown  that  this  rejection  involved 
no  failure  on  the  part  of  God  in  keepmg  Ins  promises,  and  was  consistent  with  his 
justice  and  mercy,  he  more  distinctly  announces  that,  agreeably  to  the  predictions 
of  their  own  prophets,  they  were  no  longer  the  peculiar  people  of  God.  The  re- 
mark, therefore,  which  Calvin  makes  on  v.  2,  is  applicable  to  the  whole  introductory 
part  of  the  chapter.  Non  caret  artificio,  quod  orationem  ita  abscidit,  nondum  ex- 
primcns  qua  de  re  loquatur;  nondum  enim  opportunum  erat,  interitum  gcntis  Ju- 
daicae  aperte  exprimere. 

t  Ojp('  olov  5i,  oVi  is  sometimes  taken  for  oj)^'  oiov  rs,  and  rendered,  it  is  not 
possible;  at  others,  for  wg  oV(,  or  for  the  full  phrase  ou  tokiv  5s  (Xs'yw)  oiov,  on 
non  tale  vero  dico  quale  (hoc  est)  excidisse  vcrbum  divinum. — Winek. 


384  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

(7)  NeAther  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Ahrahavi  are 
they  all  children.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  the  senti- 
ment is  confirmed,  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  does  not 
secure  a  portion  in  the  promised  inheritance.  The  language  of 
this  verse  is,  from  the  context,  perfectly  intelligible.  The  seed 
or  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  are  not  all  his  children  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  term;  i.  e.  like  him  in  faith  and  heirs  of  his 
promise.  So  in  Gal.  3:  7,  Paul  says,  "  They  which  are  of  faith, 
the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham." 

But  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.  As  the  word  ren- 
dered called  sometimes  means  to  choose,  Is.  48:  12.  49:  1,  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  may  be,  '  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
chosen.'  'I  will  select  him  as  the  recipient  of  the  blessings 
promised  to  you.'  2.  To  be  called  is  often  equivalent  to  to  be, 
to  be  regarded,  as  Is.  62:  4,  "  Thou  shalt  not  be  called  deso- 
late," i.  e.  thou  shalt  not  be  desolate.  Hence,  in  this  case,  the 
text  may  mean,  '  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be,'  i.  e.  he  shall  be 
thy  seed.  Or,  3.  '  lifter  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,'  they 
shall  derive  their  name  from  him.*  Whichever  explanation  be 
preferred,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is  the  same.  'Not  all  the 
children  of  Abraham  were  made  the  heirs  of  his  blessings,  but 
Isaac  was  selected  by  the  sovereign  will  of  God  to  be  the  re- 
cipient of  the  promise.' 

(8)  That  is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these 
are  not  the  children  of  God.  The  simj)lest  view  of  this  verse 
would  seem  to  be,  to  regard  it  as  an  explanation  of  the  historical 
argument  contained  in  the  preceding  verse.  '  The  scriptures 
declare  that  Isaac,  in  preference  to  Ishmael,  was  selected  to  be 
the  true  seed  and  heir  of  Abraham,  that  is,  or  this  proves,  that 
it  is  not  the  children  of  the  flesh  that  are  regarded  as  the 
children  of  God,  &c.'  This  suits  the  immediate  object  of  the 
apostle,  which  is  to  show  that  God,  according  to  his  good  plea- 
sure, chooses  one  and  rejects  another,  and  that  he  is  not  bound 
to  make  the  children  of  Abraham,  as  such,  the  heirs  of  his 
promise.  It  is  very  common,  however,  to  consider  this  passage 
as  analogous  to  that  in  Gal.  4:  22 — 31;  and  to  regard  the  apostle 
as  unfolding  tlic  analogy  between  the  history  of  Isaac  and  Ish- 

*  Opera  Isaaci  continget  tibi  postcritas  et  secundum  nomcn  ejus  appellabitur. — 
Waul. 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  385 

mael,  and  that  of  the  spiritual  and  natural  children  of  Abra- 
ham; Isaac  being  the  symbol  of  the  former,  and  Ishmael  of  the 
latter.  As  Ishmael,  "  who  was  born  after  the  flesh"  (Gal.  4: 
23),  i.  e.  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  was  rejected, 
so  also  are  the  children  of  the  flesh;  and  as  Isaac,  who  was  born 
"  by  promise,"  i.  e.  in  virtue  of  the  promised  interference  of 
God,  was  made  the  heir,  so  also  are  they  heirs,  who  in  like 
manner  are  the  children  of  the  promise,  that  is,  who  are  the 
children  of  God,  not  by  their  natural  birth,  but  by  his  special 
and  effectual  grace.*  The  point  of  comparison,  then,  between 
Isaac  and  believers  is,  that  both  are  born,  or  become  the  children 
of  God,  not  in  virtue  of  ordinary  birth,  but  in  virtue  of  the 
special  interposition  of  God.  In  favour  of  this  view  is  certainly 
the  strikingly  analogous  passage  referred  to  in  Galatians,  and  also 
the  purport  of  the  next  verse.  Besides  this,  if  Paul  meant  to  say 
nothing  more  in  this  and  the  following  verse,  than  that  it 
appears  from  the  choice  of  Isaac  that  God  is  free  to  select  one 
from  among  the  descendants  of  Abraham  and  to  reject  another, 
these  verses  would  differ  too  little  from  what  he  had  already 
said  in  vs.  6,  7.  It  is  best,  therefore,  to  consider  this  passage  as 
designed  to  point  out  an  instructive  analogy  between  the  case 
of  Isaac  and  the  true  children  of  God,  he  was  born  in  virtue  of 
a  special  divine  interposition,  so  now,  those  who  are  the  real 
children  of  God,  are  born  not  after  the  flesh,  but  by  his  special 
grace. 

The  children  of  the  promise.  This  expression  admits  of 
various  explanations.  1.  Many  take  it  as  meaning  merely 
the  promised  children,  as  child  of  promise  is  equivalent  to 
child  which  is  promised.  But  this  evidently  does  not  suit  the 
application  of  the  phrase  to  believers  as  made  here,  and  in  Gal. 
4:  28.  2.  It  may  mean,  according  to  a  common  force  of  the 
genitive,  children  in  virtue  of  a  promise.  This  suits  the 
context  exactly.     Isaac  was  born  not  after  the  ordinary  course 

*  Verum  aliud  praeterea  mysterium  sub  hac  imagine  latet,  quod  proprius  accedit 
ad  quacstionem  quam  prae  manibus  habemus;  nimirum  veros  fideles,  qui  per 
fidem  non  solius  Abrahami  sed  et  Dei  ipsius  filii  heredesque  facti  sunt,  non 
naturae,  quae  tota  carnalis  est,  viribus  regenitos  esse ;  at  divina  quadem  et  super- 
naturali  virtute,  quae  promissionem  in  illis  comitatur,  quemadmodurn  Isacus  ex 
Sara  vetula  sterilique  matrona,  Deo  quod  promiserat  efficiente,  procreatus  est. 
De  Brais. 

49 


386  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

of  nature,  but  in  virtue  of  a  divine  promise;  Gal.  4:  23,  wiiere 
the  expressions  born  after  the  flesh,  and  born  by  promise  are 
opposed  to  each  other.  It  is  of  course  implied  in  the  phrase 
children  in  virtue  of  a  promise  that  it  is  by  a  special  interpo- 
sition that  they  become  children,  and  this  is  the  sense  in  which 
Paul  applies  the  expression  to  believers  generally.  "  Who  are 
born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 
of  man,  but  of  God,"  John  1:13.  3.  There  is  a  third  explana- 
tion of  the  phrase  which  is  more  comprehensive,  those  to  whom 
the  promise  pertains.  This  would  include  both  the  others  just 
mentioned,  and  also  a  third  idea,  those  to  ichom  the  promise 
belongs,  or  who  are  the  heirs  of  the  promised  blessing.  This 
idea  seems  to  be  included  in  the  apostle's  use  of  the  expression. 
Gal.  4:  28,  "  Now  we,  brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children 
of  promise,"  and  3:  29,  "Ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise;"  see  too  Gal.  3:  IS,  22.  Rom.  4:16, 
"  To  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed."  Though 
this  idea  seems  to  have  been  in  the  apostle's  mind,  the  second  ex- 
planation is  most  in  accordance  with  the  context.  t^S^re  counted 
for  the  seed,  i.  e.  are  regarded  and  treated  as  such.  '  Not  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham  are  the  children  of  God,  but 
those  who  are  born  again  by  his  special  interjjosition,  are  re- 
garded and  treated  as  his  true  children.'  See  the  same  form 
of  expression  in  Gen.  31:  15. 

(9)  For  this  is  the  ivord  of  promise,  at  this  time  will  I 
come  find  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.  This  verse  is  evidently 
designed  to  show  the  propriety,  and  to  explain  the  force  of  the 
phrase  children  of  the  promise.  Isaac  was  so  called  because 
God  said  at  this  time  I  will  come,  &c.  This  is  not  only  a 
prediction  and  promise  that  Isaac  should  be  born,  but  also  a 
declaration  that  it  should  be  in  consequence  of  God's  coming, 
i.  e.  of  the  special  manifestation  of  his  })ower;  as,  in  scriptural 
language,  God  is  said  to  come,  wherever  he  specially  manifests 
his  presence  or  favour,  John  14:  23.  Luke  1:  68,  &c. 

(10)  *^nd  not  only  this,  but  ivhcn  Rebecca  also  had  con- 
ceived by  one,  &c.*     Not  only  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael 

*  As  tliis  passage  is  elliptical  or  irregular  in  it  construction  in  the  original,  it 
has  been  variously  explained.  1.  '  Not  only  did  Sarah  experience,  or  sho-w  this, 
but  Rebecca  also,  &c.'  And  then  the  12th  verse  comes  in  regularly,  "For  the 
children  not  being  yet  born,  it  ivas  said  to  her,  «&c'    2.  Rebecca,  in  v.  10,  may  be 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  387 

demonstrates  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  choice  of  the  re- 
cipients of  his  favour,  but  that  of  Rebecca  evinces  the  same 
truth  in  a  still  clearer  light.  It  might  be  supposed  that  Isaac 
was  chosen  on  account  of  his  mother,  but  in  the  case  of  Jacob 
there  is  no  room  for  such  a  supposition.  Jacob  and  Esau  had 
the  same  mother,  the  same  father,  and  were  born  at  one  birth. 
The  choice  here  was  certainly  a  sovereign  one. 

(11)  For  the  children  hdng  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evil,  &c.  The  force  of  for  is  clear  by  a  re- 
ference to  the  preceding  verse,  and  the  object  of  the  apostle. 
'  Not  only  does  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  evince  the  sove- 
reignty of  God,  but  that  of  Rebecca  and  her  children  does  the 
same,  in  a  still  more  striking  manner,ybr  the  decision  between 
her  children  was  made  previous  to  their  birth,  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  showing  that  it  was  not  made  on  the  ground  of  works, 
but  of  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.'  This  is  an  example 
which  cannot  be  evaded.  With  regard  to  Ishmael,  it  might  be 
supposed  that  either  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  or  his  per- 
sonal character  was  the  ground  of  his  rejection,  but  with  regard 
to  Esau  neither  of  these  suppositions  can  be  made.  The  circum- 
stances of  his  birth  were  identical  with  those  of  his  favoured  bro- 
ther, and  the  choice  was  made  before  either  had  done  any  thing 
good  or  evil.  The  case  of  Ishmael  was,  indeed,  sufficient  to 
prove  that  having  Abraham  for  a  father  was  not  enough  to  se- 
cure the  inheritance  of  the  promises,  but  it  could  not  prove  the 
entire  sovereignty  of  the  act  of  election  on  the  part  of  God, 
as  is  so  fully  done  by  that  of  Jacob  and  Esau. 

Neither  having  done  good  or  evil.'*  The  design  of  the  in- 
troduction of  these  words  is  expressly  stated  in  the  next  clause. 

taken  as  the  case  absolute,  '  Not  only  so,  but  also  as  to  Rebecca,  when  she  had  con- 
ceived, &c. ;  it  was  said  to  her,  &c.'  3.  The  most  common  method,  probably,  is 
to  supply  simply  this,  '  Not  only  this  (happened)  but  Rebecca  also,  when  she  had 
conceived,  &c. ;  it  was  said  to  her,  &c.'  The  regular  construction  would  be,  '  Not 
only  so,  but  also  to  Rebecca  it  was  said.'  Paul  having  interrupted  himself  by  the 
parenthesis  in  v.  11,  changes  the  grammatical  construction  at  the  beginning  of 
V.  12.     This  with  him  is  not  unfrequcnt;  see  Rom,  2:  8.  Gal.  2:  5. 

*  These  words  are  sometimes  cited  as  proof  against  the  doctrines  of  original 
sin ;  as  though  that  doctrine  imphed  that  moral  action  commenced  prior  to  birth. 
No  such  idea,  however,  is  included  in  it.  It  might,  with  as  much  propriety,  be 
argued  because  there  are  no  acts  of  selfishness,  anger  or  pride,  before  birth,  that 
these  dispositions  are  not  natural  in  man.    The  doctrine  of  original  sin  teaches 


388  ROMANS  9:  G— 24. 

It  was  to  show  that  the  ground  of  choice  was  not  in  them,  but 
in  God;  and  this  is  the  main  point  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  election,  whether  the  choice  be  to  the  privileges  of  the  exter- 
nal theocracy,  or  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ. 

That  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  chction,  might 
stand.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  choice  was  made  prior  to 
birth.  The  original*  here  admits  of  various  interpretations, 
which,  however,  do  not  materially  alter  the  sense.  The  word 
rendered  purpose  is  that  Avhich  was  used  in  tlie  previous  chap- 
ter, V.  28,  and  means  here,  as  there,  a  determination  of  the 
will,  and  of  itself  expresses  the  idea  of  its  being  sovereign,  i.  e. 
of  having  its  ground  in  the  divine  mind  and  not  in  its  objects. 
Hence,  in  2  Tim.  1:  9,  it  is  said,  "  Who  hath  called  us  not  ac- 
cording to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose,  &c.; 
see  Eph.  1:  11.  3:  11.  The  words  according  to  election  are 
designed  to   fix  more  definitely  the  nature  of  this  purpose. 

1.  The  word  election  often  means  the  act  of  choice  itself,  as 
1  Thess.  1:  4,  "Knowing,  brethren  beloved,  your  election  of 
God."  In  this  sense,  the  clause  means,  '  The  purpose  of  God 
in  reference  to  election,  or  in  relation  to  this  choice.'  This 
view  of  the  passage  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  context. 
The  choice  was  made  prior  to  birth,  in  order  that  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  purpose  of  God  in  reference  to  it  might  appear.    Or, 

2.  The  word  may  mean  liberty  or  frceness,  and  may  here 
qualify  adjectively  the  term  purpose.  The  purpose  according 
to  liberty  being  the  free  purpose;  see  similar  modes  of  expres- 
sion in  Rom.  11:  21,  "  branches  according  to  nature"  for  natu- 
ral branches;  2  Cor.  8:  2,  "  deep  poverty,"  literally,  "  poverty 
according  to  deepness."     This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  common 


that  man's  nature  is  dcpravpd,  and  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  is  evinced  by  the  cer- 
tainty and  uniformity  with  which  men  sin,  its  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  moral 
action.  In  Ukc  manner,  the  uniformity  witli  whieli  anger,  pride  and  self-love  mani- 
fest themselves,  is  regarded  as  proof  that  these  are  natural  passions.  All  that  Paul 
means  to  say  is,  that  there  was  no  ground  of  distinction  in  the  conduct  of  the  cliil- 
dren  which  could  account  for  the  choice  of  one  in  preference  to  the  other.  Whether 
both  were  possessed  of  natures  prone  to  sin  as  the  sparks  to  fly  upward ;  or,  on  the 
contrary,  prone  to  love  and  obedience  towards  God,  his  language  leaves  entirely 
undecided. 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  389 

interpretation.*  But  as  the  word  does  not  occur  in  this  sense 
in  the  New  Testament,  the  former  mode  of  explanation  is  per- 
haps to  be  preferred.  Should  stand,  i.  e.  should  be  established 
and  recognized  in  its  true  character,  that  is,  that  it  might  be  seen 
it  was  7iot  of  ivorks,  hut  of  him  that  culleth.  This  purpose 
of  God,  in  reference  to  election,  or  the  choice  itself,  is  not  of 
works,  i.  e,  does  not  de])cnd  on  works,  but  on  hhn  that  calleth. 
That  is,  as  plainly  as  language  can  express  the  idea,  the  ground 
of  the  choice  is  not  in  those  chosen,  but  in  God  who  chooses. 
In  the  same  sense  our  justification  is  said  to  be  "  not  of  works," 
Gal.  2:16,  and  often;  i.  c.  is  not  on  the  ground  of  works;  see 
Rom.  11:6.2  Tim.  1 :  9.  The  language  of  the  apostle  in  this 
verse,  and  the  nature  of  his  argument  are  so  perfectly  plain, 
that  there  is  little  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  his  general  mean- 
ing.! It  is  almost  uniformly  admitted  that  he  here  teaches  that 
the  election  spoken  of  is  perfectly  sovereign,  that  the  ground 
on  which  the  choice  is  made  is  not  in  men,  but  in  God.  The 
opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  personal  election  endeavour  to 
escape  the  force  of  this  passage,  by  saying  that  the  choice  of 
which  the  apostle  speaks,  is  not  to  eternal  life,  but  to  the  exter- 
nal advantages  of  the  theocracy;  and  that  it  was  not  so  much 
individuals  as  nations  or  communities  which  were  chosen  or 
rejected.  With  regard  to  this  latter  objection,  it  may  be  an- 
swered, 1.  That  the  language  quoted  by  the  apostle  from  the 
Old  Testament,  is  there  applied  to  the  individuals  Jacob  and 

*  Waiil's  Lexicon,  Koppe,  Flatt,  &c.  Calvin's  explanation  is,  Propositum 
Dei  quod  solo  ejus  beneplacito  continetur. 

\  Witness  the  language  of  the  most  strenuous  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of 
election. 

[Jnde  sensus  totius  loci  sic  constituitur ;  ut  appareret,  quicquid  Dcus  decernit, 
libere  cum  decernere  non  propter  hominis  meritum,  sed  pro  sua  decernentis  volun- 
tate. — Koppe.  Ut  benevola  Dei  voluntas  mancret,  ut  quae  non  a  meritis  cujus- 
quam  pendeat,  sed  benefactore  ipso. — Noessklt.  Dass  dcr  Rathschluss  Gottes 
fast  stehe,  als  ein  solcher,  der  nicht  abhange  von  menschlichcn  Verdiensten,  son- 
dem  von  dem  gnadigen  oder  freicn  Willen  Gottes.  '  That  the  decree  of  God  might 
stand  firm,  as  one  which  depended  not  on  human  merit,  but  the  gracious  or  free 
will  of  God.' — FiATT.  And  even  Tholuck  makes  Paul  argue  thus,  "  Dass  wie 
Gott,  ohne  Anrechte  anzuerkennen,  die  aussere  Theokratie  und  manchcrlci  Vor- 
theii^  Ubertrug  wem  er  woUte,  er  so  auch  jetzt  die  innere  dem  Ubertragt,  oder  den 
darein  eingehen  lasst  welchen  er  will."  '  That  as  God,  without  recognizing  any 
claims,  committed  the  external  theocracy  and  many  advantages  to  whom  he  pleased, 
so  also  now  he  commits  the  internal  to  whom  he  will,  or  allows  whom  he  will  to 
enter  it.' 


390  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

Esau;  and  that  Jacob,  as  an  individual,  was  chosen  in  preference 
to  his  brother;  and  that  Paul's  whole  argjument  turns  on  this 
very  point.  2.  That  the  choice  of  nations  involves  and  con- 
sists in  the  choice  of  individuals;  and  that  the  same  objections 
obviously  lie  against  the  choice  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
With  regard  to  the  former  objection,  that  the  choice  here  spoken 
of  is  to  the  external  theocracy  and  not  to  eternal  life,  it  may 
be  answered,  1.  Admitting  this  to  be  the  case,  how  is  the  diffi- 
culty relieved?  Is  there  any  more  objection  to  God's  choosing 
men  to  a  great  than  to  a  small  blessing,  on  the  ground  of  his 
own  good  pleasure  ?  The  foundation  of  the  objection  is  not  the 
character  of  the  blessings  we  are  chosen  to  inherit,  but  the 
sovereign  nature  of  the  choice.  Of  course  it  is  not  met  by 
making  these  blessings  either  greater  or  less.  2.  A  choice  to  the 
blessings  of  the  theocracy,  i.  e.  of  a  knowledge  and  worship  of 
the  true  God,  involved,  in  a  multitude  of  cases  at  least,  a  choice 
to  eternal  life;  as  a  choice  to  the  means  is  a  choice  to  the  end. 
And  it  is  only  so  far  as  these  advantages  were  a  means  to  this 
end,  that  their  value  was  worth  consideration.  3.  The  whole 
design  and  argument  of  the  apostle  show  that  the  objection  is 
destitute  of  force.  The  object  of  the  whole  epistle  is  to  exhibit 
the  method  of  obtaining  access  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  The 
design  here  is  to  show  that  God  is  at  liberty  to  choose  whom 
he  pleases  to  be  the  recipients  of  the  blessings  of  this  kingdom, 
and  that  he  was  not  confined  in  his  choice  to  the  descendants  of 
Abraham.  His  argument  is  derived  from  the  historical  facts 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  God  chose  Isaac  in  pre- 
ference to  Ishmael,  and  Jacob  in  preference  to  Esau,  not  on  the 
ground  of  their  works,  but  of  his  own  good  pleasure,  so  now 
he  chooses  whom  he  will  to  a  participation  of  the  blessings  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ:  these  blessings  are  pardon,  purity  and 
eternal  life,  &c.  &c.  That  such  is  the  apostle's  argument  and 
doctrine  becomes,  if  possible,  still  more  plain,  from  his  refuta- 
tion of  the  objections  urged  against  it,  which  are  precisely  the 
objections  which  have  ever  been  urged  against  the  doctrine  of 
election. 

(12)  It  was  said  to  her  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 
These  words  are  to  be  connected  with  the  10th  verse,  according: 
to  our  version,  in  this  manner,  "Not  only  //</.s',  but  Rebecca 
also,  when  she  had  conceived,  &c.,  it  was  said  to  her,  &c." 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  391 

According  to  this  view,  although  the  construction  is  irregular, 
the  sense  is  sufficiently  obvious.  As  it  was  said  to  Rebecca 
that  the  elder  of  her  sons  should  serve  the  younger,  prior  to 
the  birth  of  either,  it  is  evident  that  the  choice  between  them 
was  not  on  account  of  their  works.  It  has  been  said  that  this 
declaration  relates  not  to  Jacob  and  Esau  personally,  but  to  their 
posterity,  1.  Because  in  Gen.  25:  23,  whence  the  quotation  is 
made,  it  is  said,  "Two  nations  are  within  thy  womb,  and  the 
one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the  other  people;  and  the 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  2.  Because  Esau  did  not  per- 
sonally serve  Jacob,  although  the  descendants  of  the  one  were 
subjected  to  those  of  the  other.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the 
prediction  contained  in  this  passage  has  reference  not  only  to 
the  relative  standing  of  Jacob  and  Esau  as  individuals,  but  also  to 
that  of  their  descendants.  It  may  even  be  allowed  that  the  latter 
was  principally  intended  in  the  annunciation  to  Rebecca.  But 
it  is  too  clear  to  be  denied,  1.  That  this  distinction  between  the 
two  races  presupposed  and  included  a  distinction  between  the 
individuals.  Jacob  was  made  the  special  heir  to  his  father  Isaac, 
obtained  as  an  individual  the  birth-right  and  the  blessing,  and 
Esau  as  an  individual  was  cast  off.  The  one,  therefore,  was 
personally  preferred  to  the  other.  2.  In  Paul's  application  of 
this  event  to  his  argument,  the  distinction  between  the  two 
as  individuals  was  the  very  thing  referred  to.  This  is  plain 
from  the  11th  verse,  in  which  he  says,  "The  children  being 
not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  &c."  It 
is,  therefore,  the  nature  of  the  choice  between  the  children  that 
is  the  point  designed  to  be  presented.  As  to  the  objection  that 
Esau  never  personally  served  Jacob,  it  is  founded  on  the  mere 
literal  sense  of  the  words.  Esau  did  acknowledge  his  inferiority 
to  Jacob,  and  was  in  fact  postponed  to  him  on  various  occasions. 
This  is  the  real  spirit  of  the  passage.  This  prophecy,  as  is  the 
case  with  all  similar  predictions,  had  various  stages  of  fulfil- 
ment. The  relation  between  the  two  brothers  during  life;  the 
loss  of  the  birth-right  blessing  and  promises  on  the  part  of 
Esau;  the  temporary  subjugation  of  his  descendants  to  the 
Hebrews  under  David,  their  final  and  complete  subjection  under 
the  Maccabees;  and  especially  their  exclusion  from  the  peculiar 
privileges  of  the  people  of  God,  through  all  the  early  periods  of 
their  history,  are  all  included.     Compare  the  prediction  of  the 


392  ROMANS  9:  G— 24. 

subjection  of  Ham  to  his  brethren;  and  of  Japheth's  dwelling 
in  the  tents  of  Shem,  Gen.  9:  25 — 27. 

(13)  ^s  it  is  ivrltlen,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have 
I  hated.  These  words  are  quoted  from  Malachi  1:  2,  3,  where 
the  prophet  is  reproving  the  Jews  for  their  ingratitude.  As  a 
proof  of  his  peculiar  favour,  God  refers  to  his  preference  for 
them  from  the  first,  "Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother,  saith  the 
Lord;  yet  I  loved  Jacob,  and  I  hated  Esau,  &c."  This  passage, 
as  well  as  the  one  quoted  in  v.  12,  and  just  referred  to,  relates 
to  the  descendants  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  as  well  as  to  the  indi- 
viduals themselves;  the  favour  shown  to  the  posterity  of  the 
one,  and  withheld  from  that  of  the  other,  being  founded  on  the 
distinction  originally  made  between  the  two  brothers.  The 
meaning,  therefore,  is,  that  God  preferred  one  to  the  other,  or 
chose  one  instead  of  the  other.*  As  this  is  the  idea  meant  to 
be  expressed,  it  is  evident  that  in  this  case  the  word  hate  means 
to  love  less,  to  regard  and  treat  loith  less  favour.  Thus  in 
Gen.  29:  33,  Leah  says,  she  was  hated  by  her  husband;  while 
in  the  preceding  verse,  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  saying, 
"Jacob  loved  Rachael  more  than  Leah,"  Matt.  8:  24.  Luke  14: 
26,  "  If  a  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father  and  mother, 
&c."  John  12:  25.  The  quotation  from  the  Prophet  may  be 
considered  either  as  designed  in  confirmation  of  the  declaration 
that  the  elder  should  serve  the  younger;  or  it  may  be  connected 
in  sense  with  the  close  of  the  11th,  *  God  is  sovereign  in  the 
distribution  of  his  favours,  as  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved, 
and  Esau  have  I  hated;'  the  distinction  made  between  these 
two  individuals  being;  cited  as  an  illustration  and  confirmation 
of  the  apostle's  doctrine.  . 

The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verses  is  that  God  is  perfectly 
sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours,  that  the  ground  of 
his  selecting  one  and  rejecting  another  is  not  their  works,  but 
his  own  good  pleasure.  To  this  doctrine  there  are  two  plausible 
objections;  first,  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  divine  justice,  v. 
14;  second,  it  is  incompatible  wilh  human  responsibility,  v.  19. 
To  the  former  the  apostle  answers  first,  God  claims  distinctly 

*  Quanquam  illic  etiam  commemorantur  bcncdictiones  terrenae,  quae  Israelitis 
contulerat  Dcus:  non  tamen  alitcr  accijiere  convenit  quani  illius  benevolentiac 
symbola.     Cacterum  uhi  est  ha  Dei,  illic  mors  scquitur  ;  ubi  dilcctio,  iUic  vita. — 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  393 

in  his  word  this  prerogative,  v.  15;  and  secondly,  he  obviously 
exercises  it,  as  is  seen  in  the  dispensations  of  his  providence, 
V.  17.* 

(14)  What  shall  we  say  then,  is  there  unrighteousness 
with  God?  GodforbidA  The  apostle,  according  to  his  usual 
manner,  proposes  the  objection  to  his  own  doctrine  in  the  form 
of  a  question,  denies  its  validity,  and  immediately  subjoins  his 
reason;  see  Rom.  3:  5.  Gal,  3:  21.  The  obvious  objection  here 
presented  is,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God,  thus,  according  to  his  own 
purpose,  to  choose  one  and  reject  another.  This  Paul  denies, 
and  supports  his  denial  by  an  appeal,  in  the  first  place,  to  scrip- 
ture, and  the  second,  to  experience.  It  will  be  remarked  that 
these  arguments  of  the  apostle  are  founded  on  two  assumptions. 
The  first  is,  that  the  scriptures  are  the  word  of  God;  and  the 
second,  that  what  God  actually  does  cannot  be  unrighteous. 
Consequently  any  objection  which  can  be  shown  to  militate 
against  either  an  express  declaration  of  scripture,  or  an  obvious 
fact  in  providence,  is  fairly  answered.  And  if,  as  is  almost 
always  the  case,  when  it  militates  against  the  one,  it  can  be 
shown  to  militate  against  the  other,  the  answer  is  doubly  ratified. 

(15)  For  God  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  comjiassion  on  whom  I 
will  have  com,passion.  The  connexion  and  argument  are  ob- 
vious. '  It  is  not  unjust  in  God  to  exercise  his  sovereignty  in 
the  distribution  of  his  mercies,  for  he  expressly  claims  the 
right.'  The  passage  quoted  is  from  the  account  of  the  solemn 
interview  of  Moses  with  God.  In  answer  to  the  prayer  of  the 
prophet  for  his  people  and  for  himself,  God  answered,  "  I  will 
proclaim  my  name  before  thee,  and  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I 
will  be  gracious,  &c."  Ex.  33:  19.  It  is,  therefore,  a  formal 
declaration  of  a  divine  prerogative.     The  form  of  expression  / 

*  Est  enim  praedestinatio  Dei  vere  labyrinthus,  unde  hominis  ingenium  nuUo 
modo  se  explicare  queat :  atque  adeo  importuna  est  homixds  curiositas,  ut  quo  pe- 
riculosior  est  cujusque  rei  inquisitio,  eo  audacius  perrumpat:  ita  ubi  de  praedesti- 
natione  sermo  habetur,  quia  modum  sibi  imponere  non  potest,  sua  temeritate  velut 
in  profundum  mare  statim  se  demergit.  *  »  »  »  Haec  ergo  sit  nobis  sancta  ob- 
servatio,  nequid  de  ipsa  scire  appetamus,  nisi  quod  scriptura  docet :  ubi  Dominus 
sacrum  os  suum  claudit,  viam  quoque  ultra  pergendi  mentibus  nostris  praecluda- 
mus. — Calvix. 

■\  Prodigiosus  certe  humani  ingenii  furor,  quod  injustitiae  potius  Deum  insimulat, 
quam  ut  se  coarguat  coecitatis. — Calvin. 

50 


394  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

will  do  what  I  do,  or  I  do  what  I  do,  is  here,  as  in  Ez.  16  r  23. 
2  Sam.  15:  20,  designed  to  convey  the  idea,  that  it  rests  entirely 
with  the  agent  to  act  or  not,  at  his  pleasure.  The  ground  of 
decision  is  in  himself.  In  the  connexion  of  this  verse  with  the 
former,  therefore,  it  is  obvious  that  Paul  quotes  this  declaration 
to  prove  that  God  claims  the  sovereignty,  which  he  had  attri- 
buted to  him.  In  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  passage  many 
deny  that  it  expresses  the  sentiment  of  the  apostle.  They 
consider  this  and  the  following  verses  as  the  objections  of  a 
Jewish  fatalist.  A  mode  of  interpretation  so  obviously  incon- 
sistent with  the  context,  and  even  the  proper  force  of  the  words, 
that  it  is  mentioned  only  to  show  how  hard  it  is  to  close  the 
eyes  against  the  doctrine  which  the  apostle  so  clearly  teaches. 

(16)  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  him  that 
runneth,  &c.  If  the  ground  of  the  decision  or  choice  of  the 
objects  of  mercy  be  in  God,  as  asserted  in  v.  15,  then  it  is  not 
in  man,  is  a  conclusion  which  flows  of  course  from  the  pre- 
vious declarations.  The  word  it  refers  to  the  result  contem- 
plated in  the  context,  viz.  the  attainment  of  the  divine  favour, 
or  more  definitely,  admission  into  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
This  result,  when  attained,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  the  wishes 
or  efforts  of  man,  but  to  the  mercy  of  God.  That  one,  there- 
fore, is  taken,  and  another  left,  that  one  is  introduced  into  this 
kingdom  and  another  not,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  fact  asserted 
in  the  preceding  verse,  that "  God  will  have  mercy  on  whom  he 
will  have  mercy."  This  seems  plainly  to  be  the  apostle's 
meaning.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the  efforts  here  declared  to 
be  vain  are  those  of  the  self-righteous;  that  Paul  intends  to  say 
that  the  Jews,  by  the  works  of  the  law,  could  not  attain  the 
favour  of  God,  &c.  But  no  such  sentiment  is  expressed  by  the 
apostle;  it  is  all  supplied  by  the  commentator.  The  sentiment, 
moreover,  is  not  only  not  expressed,  but  it  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction to  the  language  and  design  of  the  apostle.  He  says  the 
ground  of  choice,  or  of  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is 
not  in  us;  this  interpretation  says  it  is  in  us.  Paul  says  it  is 
in  God;  this  interpretation  says,  it  is  not  in  God.* 

*  Altcro  sophistiro  sed  putido  cavillo  Paiili  sciitontiam  chidore  conahis  est 
Pelagius,  non  esse  qtiidem  volentis  et  ciiiTciiti.s  duntaxat,  quia  miscricordia  Dei 
adjuvat.  Quom  non  minus  soiido  quain  ar<juto  Augusfinus  refellit:  quia  si  idco 
electionis  causa  esse  ncgatur  voluntas  hominis,  quia  non  sola,  sed  tantum  ex  parte 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  395 

These  words,  however,  are  not  intended  to  teach  that  the 
efforts  of  men  for  the  attainment  of  salvation  are  useless;  much 
less  do  they  teach  that  such  efforts  should  not  be  made.  They 
simply  declare  that  the  result  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  them; 
that  the  reason  why  one  man  secures  the  blessing,  and  another 
does  not,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  greater  ardour  of  desire,  or 
intensity  of  effort  in  the  one,  than  in  the  other,  but  the  reason 
is  in  God.  This  doctrine  is  consistent,  not  only  with  the  duty 
of  all  to  strive  to  enter  into  life,  but  also  with  the  connexion 
between  these  efforts  and  the  desired  end.  Because  althoush 
the  result  depends  on  God,  he  may  and  does  bring  it  to  pass  in 
the  use  of  the  means  which  he  has  appointed  for  the  purpose. 
The  question,  however,  of  the  use  of  means,  is  foreign  to  this 
discussion.  Paul  has  no  reference  to  that  subject.  He  simply 
declares  that  election  is  founded  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God, 
and  not  on  any  thing  in  man.* 

(17)  For  the  scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  kc.  The  con- 
nexion of  this  verse  is  with  the  14th,  rather  than  with  the  one 
immediately  preceding.  Paul  is  still  engaged  in  answering  the 
objection  proposed  in  the  14th  verse.  There  is  no  injustice  with 
God,  because  he  saith  to  Moses, '  I  will  have  mercy,  &c.'  v.  15, 
and  because  the  scripture  saith  to  Pharaoh,  for  this  purpose,  &c. 
V.  17.  His  second  answer  to  the  objection  is,  that  God,  in  point 
of  fact,  does  exercise  this  sovereignty,  as  is  evident  from  the 
case  of  Pharaoh.  Pharaoh  was  no  worse  than  many  other  men 
who  have  obtained  mercy;  yet  God,  for  wise  and  benevolent 
reasons,  withheld  from  him  the  saving  influences  of  his  grace, 
and  gave  him  up  to  his  own  wicked  heart,  so  that  he  became 
more  and  more  hardened,  until  he  was  finally  destroyed.  God 
did  nothing  to  Pharaoh  beyond  his  strict  deserts.  He  did  not 
make  him  wicked;  he  only  forebore  to  make  him  good,  by  the 
exertion  of  special  and  altogether  unmerited  grace.  The  reason, 
therefore,  of  Pharaoh's  being  left  to  perish,  while  others  were 
saved,  was  not  that  he  was  worse  than  others,  but  because  God 
has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy;  it  was  because,  among 

causa  est;  sic  etiam  vicissim  dicerc  licehit,  non  esse  misericordiae,  sed  volcntis  ct 
currentis. — Calvin. 

*  Simpliciter  autem  accipe,  nequc  in  voluntate  nostra,  noque  in  conatu  esse 
situm,  ut  inter  electos  censeamur:  sed  totum  id  divinac  bonitatis,  quae  ncc  volentcs 
nee  conantcs,  ac  ne  cogitantes  quidem  ultro  assumit. — Calvin. 


396  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

the  criminals  at  his  bar,  he  pardons  one  and  not  another,  as 
seems  good  in  his  sight.  He,  therefore,  who  is  pardoned  cannot 
say  it  was  because  I  was  better  than  others;  while  he  who  is 
condemned  must  acknowledge  that  he  receives  nothing  more 
than  the  just  recompense  of  his  sins.  In  order  to  establish 
his  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  Paul  had  cited  from 
scripture  the  declaration  that  God  shows  mercy  to  whom  he 
will;  he  now  cites  an  example  to  show  that  he  punishes  whom 
he  will. 

Even  for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up.  This  is 
what  God  said  to  Pharaoh,  as  recorded  in  Ex.  9:16.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  declaration  may  be  variously  explained.  In  the  Old 
Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  used  in  the  passage  quoted,  means 
literally,  I  have  caused  thee  to  stand.  This  is  understood  by 
some  as  meaning  /  have  called  thee  into  existence.  2.  By 
others,  /  have  preserved  thee.  3.  By  others,  /  have  raised 
thee  up  asking.  4.  By  others,  I  have  placed  and  continued 
thee  as  my  adversary.  Either  of  these  interpretations  admits 
of  being  defended  on  philological  grounds  more  or  less  satisfac- 
tory. The  first  is  sufficiently  suitable  to  the  force  of  the  word 
used  by  the  apostle,  but  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  original 
passage  in  Exodus.  For  the  second,  it  may  be  urged  that 
verbs  in  the  form  (Hiphil)  used  in  the  passage  quoted,  signify 
frequently  the  continuance  of  a  thing  in  the  state  which  the 
simple  form  of  the  verb  expresses.  Thus  the  verb  meaning  to 
live,  in  this  form,  signifies  to  preserve  alive,  Gen.  6:19,  20. 
19:  19,  &c.  Besides,  the  particular  word  used  in  Ex.  9:  16, 
signifies  to  preserve,  to  cause  to  continue,  in  1  Kings  15:4. 
2  Chron.  9:  8.  Prov.  29:  4,  &c.  The  tiiird  interpretation  is  too 
definite,  and  supplies  an  idea  not  in  the  text.  The  fourth, 
which  is  only  a  modification  of  the  second,  is  perhaps  the  nearest 
to  the  apostle's  intention.  '  For  this  purpose  have  I  raised  you 
up,  and  placed  you  where  you  are;  and  instead  of  cutting  you 
off  at  once,  have  so  long  endured  your  obstinacy  and  wicked- 
ness.'* 

Ttiat  I  migJit  show  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name 
might  he  declared  in  all  the  earth.     This  is  the  reason  why 


*  Ego  te  suscitavi,  et  quasi  adversarium  milii  constitui  potentissimuni,  &c. — 
De  Bhais. 


ROMANS  9:  G— 24.  397 

God  dealt  with  Pharaoli  in  the  manner  described.  It  was  not 
that  he  was  worse  than  others,  but  that  God  might  be  glorified. 
This  is  precisely  the  principle  on  which  all  punishment  is  in- 
flicted. It  is  that  the  true  character  of  the  divine  lawgiver  should 
be  known.  This  is  of  all  objects,  when  God  is  concerned,  the 
highest  and  most  important;  in  itself  the  most  worthy,  and  in 
its  results  the  most  beneficent.  The  ground,  therefore,  on 
which  Pharaoh  was  made  an  object  of  the  divine  justice,  or  the 
reason  why  the  law  was  in  his  case  allowed  to  take  its  course, 
is  not  to  be  sought  in  any  peculiarity  of  his  character  or  con- 
duct in  comparison  with  those  of  others,  but  in  the  sovereign 
pleasure  of  God.  This  result  of  the  argument  Paul  formally 
states  in  the  next  verse. 

(18)  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  lohom  he  will  have  7nercy, 
and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.  This  is  the  conclusion,  not 
merely  from  the  preceding  verse,  but  from  the  whole  passage, 
vs.  14 — 17.  This  perfect  sovereignty  in  the  selection  of  the 
objects  of  his  mercy  and  of  his  judgment,  Paul  had  attributed 
to  God  in  v.  11,  and,  in  the  subsequent  verses,  had  proved  that 
he  claims  and  exercises  it,  both  in  reference  to  the  recipients 
of  his  favour,  v.  15,  and  the  subjects  of  his  wrath,  v.  17.  The 
doctrine,  therefore,  is  fully  established. 

The  latter  clause  of  this  verse,  whom  he  icill  he  hardeneth^ 
admits  of  various  explanations.  The  word  may  be  taken  either 
in  its  ordinary  meaning,  or  it  may  be  understood  in  its  second- 
ary sense.  According  to  the  latter  view,  it  means  to  treat 
harshly,  to  punish.  This  interpretation,  it  must  be  admitted, 
is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  context,  •'  He  hath  mercy  on  whom 
he  will,  and  he  punishes  whom  he  will.'  Nor  is  it  entirely 
destitute  of  philological  support.  In  Job  39:  16,  it  is  said  of 
the  ostrich,  "  She  treateth  hardly  her  young."*  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  liable  to  serious  objections.  1.  It  is  certain 
that  it  is  a  very  unusual  sense  of  the  word,  and  opposed  to  the 

*  Our  version  is  "  She  is  hardened  against  her  young,"  but  tliis  is  not  accurate. 
The  Hebrew  is  TTn  n'lypn,  and  the  LXX.  translate  a'^reffxXvjPuvs  to.  Tsxva 

The  interpretation  mentioned  in  the  text  is  given  by  Wahl  in  his  Lexicon,  and 
is  defended  by  Bexgel  thus,  "  Indtirat  dicit  pro  no7i  miseretur,  per  metonymiam 
consequentis,  etsi  to  non  misereri  quodanimodo  durius  sonat.  Sic,  sanctijicatus 
est,  pro,  non  est  impnnis,  1  Cor.  7  :  14,  i^^uSad'hs,  pro,  non  tradiclistis,  Jos.  22: 31. 


398  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

meaning  in  which  it  frequently  occurs.  There  should  be  very 
strong  reasons  for  departing  from  the  usual  meaning  of  an  ex- 
pression so  common  in  the  scriptures.  2.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  speak  of  the 
hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart.  3.  It  removes  no  difficulty;  for 
what,  according  to  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  is  here  said,  is 
frequently  said  elsewhere. 

The  common  sense  of  the  word  is,  therefore,  doubtless,  to  be 
preferred,  whom  he  will  he  hardens.  This  is  by  many  under- 
stood to  express  a  direct  and  positive  influence  of  God  on  the 
soul  in  rendering  it  obdurate.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  inter- 
pretation is  by  no  means  necessary,  as  will  presently  be  shown; 
and,  in  the  second,  it  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  our  ideas 
of  the  divine  character. 

2.  Others  think  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  explained  by  a  refer- 
ence to  that  scriptural  usage,  according  to  which  God  is  said  to 
do  whatever  indirectly  and  incidentally  results  from  his  agency; 
on  the  same  principle  that  a  father  is  said  to  ruin  his  children, 
or  a  master  his  servants;  or  that  Christ  is  said  to  produce  wars 
and  divisions.  Thus  Is.  6:  10,  the  prophet  is  commanded  to 
make  the  heart  of  the  people  fat,  and  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut 
their  eyes,  &c.,  as  though  to  him  were  to  be  ascribed  the  inci- 
dental results  of  his  preaching.  In  the  same  way  the  gospel  is 
the  cause  of  death  (not  of  misery  only,  but  of  insensibility 
also),  to  those  who  hear  and  disregard  it.  3.  Nearly  allied  to 
this  mode  of  explanation  is  that  which  rests  on  the  assumption 
that  God  is  said  to  do  what  he  permits  to  be  done.  Refer- 
ence is  made  to  such  passages  as  tlie  following.  2  Sam.  12: 
11,  "I  will  give  thy  wives  unto  tliy  neighbour,"  i.  e.  I  will 
permit  him  to  take  them.  2  Sam.  16:  10,  "The  Lord  hath 
said  unto  him,  curse  David."  Is.  63:  17,  "0  Lord  why  hast 
thou  caused  us  to  err  from  thy  ways,  and  hardened  our  hearts 
from  thy  fear."  Deut.  2:  30,  "  For  tlie  Lord  thy  God  hardened 
his  spirit  (Sihon's),  that  he  might  deliver  him  into  thy  hand." 

1  Kings  11:23,  "The  Lord  stirred  up  another  adversary." 
Ps.  105:  25,  "  lie  turned  their  hearts  to  hate  his  people."     In 

2  Sam.  24:  1,  God  is  said  to  have  moved  David  to  number  the 
people;  but  in  1  Chron.  21:  1,  Satan  is  said  to  have  provoked 
David  to  number  Israel.  From  these  and  similar  passages  it  is 
evident  that  it  is  a  familiar  scriptural  usage,  to  ascribe  to  God 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  399 

effects  which  he  allows  in  his  wisdom  to  come  to  pass.  Hence, 
almost  every  thing  is,  at  times,  spoken  of  as  if  it  was  produced 
by  divine  agency,  although,  in  a  multitude  of  other  places,  these 
same  results  are  referred,  as  in  some  of  the  examples  cited 
above,  to  their  immediate  authors.  According  to  this  mode  of 
representation,  God  is  understood  as  merely  permitting  Pha- 
raoh to  harden  his  own  heart,  as  the  result  is  often  expressly 
referred  to  Pharaoh  himself,  Ex.  8:  15,  32,  &c.* 

4.  But  there  seems  to  be  more  expressed  by  the  language  of 
the  text  than  mere  permission,  because  it  is  evidently  a  puni- 
tive act  that  is  here  intended,  and  because  this  view  does  not 
suit  the  other  passages  in  which  God  is  said  to  give  sinners  up 
to  the  evil  of  their  own  hearts,  Rom.  1 :  24,  28. t  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  judicial  abandonment  of  men  "  to  a  repro- 
bate mind,'^  a  punitive  withdrawing  of  the  influences  of  his 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  giving  them  up  to  the  uncounteracted 
operation  of  the  hardening  or  perverting  influences  by  which 
they  are  surrounded,  are  all  expressed  by  the  language  of  the 
apostle.  In  this  God  does  no  more  than  what  he  constantly 
threatens  to  do,  or  which  the  scriptures  declare  he  actually  does, 
in  the  case  of  those  who  forsake  him;  and  nothing  more  than 
every  righteous  parent  does  in  reference  to  a  reprobate  son. 
This,  in  connexion  with  the  principle  referred  to  above  (in 
No.  2),  seems  as  much  as  can  fairly  be  considered  as  included  in 
the  expressions. 

(19)  Thou  wilt  then  say  unto  me,  why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault  ?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  toill  ?  This  is  the  second 
leading  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  If  it  is  true,  as  he 
had  just  taught,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God, 
if  it  is  not  of  him  who  willeth,  or  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of 
God  that  showeth  mercy;  what  can  we  do  ?  If  the  fact  that 
one  believes  and  is  saved,  and  another  remains  impenitent  and 

*  Ex  quibus  verbis  liquido  constat  Pharaonis,  atque  adeo  rcprobi  cujusvis,  ani- 
mum  verbi  divini  monitis  duriter  et  pracfracte  rcstitisse,  quia  contumaciam  ejus 
cum  posset  Deus  virtute  supernaturali,  dequamodo  dictum  est,  frangerc  et  cmollire, 
de  industria  noluit  arcanam  illam  sui  Spiritus  gratiam  huic  homini  donarc,  sine 
qua  fieri  ncquit,  quin  humanum  ingenium,innata  malitia,  sc  ipsum  adversus  omnes 
prophetarum  ct  apostolorum  exhortationes  obdurat. — De  Buais. 

-j-  Caeterum  Indurandi  verbum,  quum  Deo  in  scriptura  tribuitur,  non  solum 
pennissionem  (ut  volant  diluti  quidam  uiodcratores)  sed  divinac  quo<juc  irao  ac- 
tionem, significat. — Calvis. 


400  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

is  lost,  depends  on  God,  how  can  we  be  blamed  ?  Can  we  resist 
his  will  ?  It  will  at  once  be  perceived  that  this  plausible  and 
formidable  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  precisely  the 
one  which  is  commonly  and  confidently  urged  against  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  There  would  be  no  room  either  for  this  ob- 
jection, or  for  that  contained  in  the  14th  verse,  if  Paul  had 
merely  said  that  God  chooses  those  whom  he  forsees  would 
repent  and  believe;  or  that  the  ground  of  distinction  was  in  the 
different  conduct  of  men.  It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  he 
taught  no  such  doctrine.  How  easy  and  obvious  an  answer  to 
the  charge  of  injustice  would  it  have  been  to  say,  God  chooses 
one  and  rejects  another  according  to  their  works.  But  teach- 
ing as  he  does  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  selection  of  the 
objects  of  his  mercy  and  of  the  subjects  of  his  wrath,  declaring 
as  he  does  so  plainly,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  determined 
by  his  sovereign  pleasure,  the  objection,  how  can  he  yet  find 
fault  ?  is  plausible  and  natural.  To  this  objection  the  apostle 
gives  two  answers;  1.  That  it  springs  from  ignorance  of  the 
true  relation  between  God  and  men,  as  Creator  and  creatures, 
and  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  divine  authority  over  us, 
vs.  20,  21;  2.  That  there  is  nothing  in  his  doctrine  inconsistent 
with  the  divine  perfections;  since  he  does  not  make  men 
wicked,  but  from  the  mass  of  wicked  men,  he  pardons  one  and 
punishes  another,  for  the  wisest  and  most  benevolent  of  reasons, 
vs.  22,  23. 

(20)  Nay,  but,  0  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against 
God?  Shall  the  thing  formed,  &lc.  In  these  words  we  have 
both  a  reproof  and  an  answer.  The  reproof  is  directed  against 
the  irreverent  spirit,  whence  such  cavils  always  arise.  After 
the  clear  proof  given  in  the  preceding  verses,  that  God  claims 
this  sovereignty  in  his  word,  and  exercises  it  in  his  providence, 
it  argues  great  want  of  reverence  for  God  to  assert  that  this 
claim  involves  the  grossest  injustice.  It  is  very  common  with 
the  sacred  writers,  and  with  Christ  himself,  when  questions  or 
cavils  are  presented,  to  direct  their  answers  more  to  the  feeling 
which  the  question  indicated,  than  to  the  question  itself.  Tho- 
luck  refers,  in  illustration  of  this  remark,  to  John  3:  3.  Matt. 
8:  19,  20,  22.  19:  16.  22:  29.  But  in  this  case,  besides  this 
reproof  for  a  miserable  mortal  attempting  to  call  his  Maker  to 
account,  instead  of  considering  that  the  mere  fact  that  God 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  401 

claims  any  thing  as  his  right,  is  evidence  enough  that  it  is  just, 
there  is  a  direct  answer  to  the  difficulty.  The  objection  is 
founded  on  ignorance  or  misapprehension  of  the  true  relation 
between  God  and  his  sinful  creatures.  It  supposes  that  he  is 
under  obligation  to  extend  his  grace  to  all.  Whereas  he  is 
under  obligation  to  none.  All  are  sinners,  and  have  forfeited 
every  claim  to  his  mercy;  it  is,  therefore,  perfectly  competent 
to  God  to  spare  one  and  not  another;  to  make  one  vessel  to 
honour,  and  another  to  dishonour.  He,  as  their  sovereign 
Creator,  has  the  same  right  over  them  that  a  potter  has  over  the 
clay.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Paul  does  not  here  speak 
of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  creatures,  but  as  sinful 
creatures;  as  he  himself  clearly  intimates  in  the  next  verses.  It 
is  the  cavil  of  a  sinful  creature  against  his  Creator,  that  he  is 
answering;  and  he  does  it  by  showing  that  God  is  under  no 
obligation  to  give  his  grace  to  any,  but  is  as  sovereign  as  the 
potter  in  fashioning  the  clay. 

Shall  the  thing  formed,  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  ivhy 
hast  thou  made  me  thus?  See  Isaiah  45:  9.  In  this  clause 
Paul  presents  mainly  the  idea  of  God's  right,  and  in  the  subse- 
quent verses  he  shows  that  nothing  unjust  is  included  in  the 
right  here  claimed.  We  are  justly  in  his  hands;  and  it  is  the 
height  of  irreverence  and  folly  for  us  to  call  him  to  account  for 
the  manner  in  which  he  may  see  fit  to  dispose  of  us. 

(21)  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  out  of  the 
same  lump,  to  make  one  vessel,  &c.  &c.  The  word  rendered 
power  means  also  authority  and  right.  In  this  case  it  means, 
the  lawful  power  or  right;  he  not  only  can  do  it,  but  he  has  a 
perfect  right  to  do  it;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  in  Matt. 
21:  23.  1  Cor.  8:  9,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  This  verse  is 
merely  an  illustration  of  the  idea  contained  in  the  last  clause  of 
the  preceding.  The  Creator  has  a  perfect  right  to  dispose  of 
his  creatures  as  he  sees  fit.  From  the  very  idea  of  a  creature, 
it  can  have  no  claim  on  the  Creator;  whether  it  exists  at  all,  or 
how,  or  where,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  must  depend  on 
him,  and  be  at  his  sovereign  disposal.  The  illustration  of  this 
truth  which  follows,  is  peculiarly  appropriate.  When  the 
potter  takes  a  piece  of  clay  into  his  hands,  and  approaches  the 
wheel,  how  entirely  does  it  rest  with  himself  to  determine  the 
form  that  clay  shall  take,  and  the  use  to  which  it  shall  be 

51 


402  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

destined  ?  Can  any  thing  be  more  unreasonable,  than  that  the 
clay,  supposing  it  endued  with  intelligence,  should  complain 
that  the  form  given  it  was  not  so  comely,  or  the  use  to  which 
it  was  destined  not  so  honourable  as  those  which  fell  to  the  lot 
of  a  different  portion  of  the  same  mass  ?  Are  not  these  points 
on  which  the  potter  has  a  most  perfect  right  to  decide  for  him- 
self, and  regarding  which  the  thing  formed  can  have  no  right 
to  complain  or  question  ?  And  so  it  is  with  God;  the  mass  of 
fallen  men  are  in  his  hands,  and  it  is  his  right  to  dispose  of  them 
at  pleasure;  to  make  all  vessels  unto  honour,  or  all  unto  dis- 
honour, or  some  to  one  and  some  to  the  other.  These  are 
points  on  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  relation,  we  have  no 
right  to  question  or  complain. 

(22,  23)  But  what  if  God,  ivilling  to  shoiv  his  wrath,  and 
to  make  his  power  known  endured  with  much  long  suffering 
the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction;  and  that  he  might 
make  knoion  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy y 
which  he  had  afore  jjrepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  &lc.  ?  These 
verses  contain  Paul's  second  answer  to  the  difficulty  presented 
in  the  19th  verse.  He  had  shown  in  vs.  20,  21,  that  in  virtue  of 
his  relation  to  men  as  his  sinful  creatures,  God  is  at  perfect 
liberty  to  dispose  of  them  at  his  pleasure,  pardoning  one  and 
punishing  another,  as  secmeth  good  in  his  sight.  He  now  shows 
that  in  the  exercise  of  this  rigrht  there  is  nothing  unreasonable 
or  unjust,  nothing  of  which  his  creatures  have  the  least  right  to 
complain.  The  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  an  arbitrary 
act,  having  no  object  but  to  make  them  miserable;  it  is  designed 
to  manifest  the  displeasure  of  God  against  sin, and  to  make  known 
his  true  character.  On  the  other  hand,  the  salvation  of  the 
righteous  was  designed  to  display  the  riches  of  his  grace.  Both 
in  the  punishment  of  the  one  class,  and  the  salvation  of  the 
other,  most  important  and  benevolent  ends  were  to  be  answer- 
ed. And  since  for  these  ends  it  was  necessary  that  some 
should  be  punished,  while  others  might  be  pardoned,  as  all  are 
equally  undeserving,  it  results  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that 
the  decision  between  the  vessels  of  wrath  and  the  vessels  of 
mercy  must  be  left  to  God.  The  apostle  would,  moreover, 
have  it  remarked  that  even  in  Ihe  necessary  j)unishment  of  the 
wicked,  God  docs  not  proceed  with  any  undue  severity,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  deals  with  them  with  the  greatest  long-suf- 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  403 

fering  and  tenderness.     Such  seems  to  be  the  general  purport 
and  object  of  these  difficult  verses. 

The  attentive  reader  will  perceive  that  even  with  the  inser- 
tion of  the  word  what  which  has  notliing  to  answer  to  it  in  the 
original,  and  with  a  sign  of  interrogation  at  the  end  of  v.  24, 
the  construction  of  the  passage  in  our  version  remains  ungram- 
matical  and  the  sense  incomplete.  As  the  difficulty  exists  in 
the  Greek  text  and  not  merely  in  our  translation,  the  explanations 
which  have  been  proposed  are  very  numerous.  Many  of  these 
are  presented  and  canvassed  by  Tholuck  and  Wolf,  particularly 
the  latter.  There  are  three  views  taken  of  the  connexion,  which 
are  the  most  plausible.  1.  The  two  verses  are  considered  as 
both  referring  to  the  rejection  of  the  wicked,  for  which  v.  22 
assigns  one  reason,  and  v.  23  another.  'What  if  God,  willing 
to  show  his  wrath,  endured  with  much  long-sufl'ering  the  vessels 
of  wrath,  so  that  also  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his 
glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  &c.'  The  treatment  of  the  wicked 
was  not  only  to  display  the  divine  displeasure  against  sin,  but  also, 
by  contrast,  his  mercy  towards  his  people.*  But,  in  order  to 
make  the  two  verses  cohere  in  this  way,  it  is  necessary  to  trans- 
pose the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  23d  verse,  and  read  that 
also,  instead  oiand  that,  which  alters  the  sense  materially,  while 
for  such  a  transposition  there  is  no  authority.  Besides  this,  it 
makes  v.  23  too  subordinate  to  v.  22;  that  is,  it  makes  God's 
dealings  towards  the  vessels  of  mercy  merely  an  incidental  topic, 
instead  of  having  equal  prominence  with  his  treatment  of  the 
vessels  of  wrath.  From  the  context  we  are  led  to  expect  a 
vindication  of  his  course,  not  only  in  the  destruction  of  the  lat- 
ter, but  in  the  salvation  of  the  former. 

*  So  among  others  Calvin,  who  translates  verse  23  thus,  Ut  notas  quoque 
flicerct  (livitias  gloriae  suae  in  vasa  misericordiac,  quae  praeparavit  in  gloriani. 
And  in  his  comment  he  remarks.  Est  autem  secunda  ratio  quae  gloriani  Dei  in  rcpro- 
borum  interitu  manifestat;  quod  ex  eo  luculcntius  divinae  bonitatis  erga  electos 
amplitudo  confirmatur. 

Much  in  the  same  way  WixEn  explains  the  passage,  connecting  the  xal  I'vot 
of  V.  23,  immediately  with  the  verb  igvsyxev  of  v.  22,  "  Wenn  Gott  beschliesscnd 
mit  aller  Langmuth  die  Gefasse  seines  Zornes  trug  •  •  auch  in  dcr  Absicht,  den 
Reichthum  *  *  zucrkcnncn  zu  geben."  "  If  God  willing  *  *  •  •  bore  with  all 
long-sutfering  the  vessels  of  wrath  *  •  »  »  also  with  the  view  to  make  known  the 
riches,  &c."  Gaam.  p.  443. 


404  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

2.  A  second  method  is  to  make  the  second  clause  of  v.  22 
and  the  beginning  of  v.  23  depend  on  the  first  words  of  v.  22. 
*  God  willing  to  show  his  wrath  and  make  his  power  known, 
and  (willing)  that  the  riches  of  his  glory  should  be  known,  &c.' 
This  gives  a  good  sense,  though  the  construction  is  suddenly 
and  rather  violently  changed  at  the  beginning  of  v.  23,  "that 
he  might  make  known,"  stand  for  the  infinitive,  "  to  make 
known." 

3.  Tholuck  makes  v,  24  parallel  with  v.  23,  and  explains 
the  passage  thus,  '  God,  willing  to  manifest  his  wrath,  bore  with 
the  vessels  of  wrath;  and  that  he  might  make  known  his  mercy, 
called  us,  &c.'  This  gives  a  very  good  sense,  but  assumes  the 
construction  to  be  irregular  to  a  very  unusual  degree.  Though 
the  second  method  be  somewhat  irregular,  it  seems,  on  the 
whole,  the  least  objectionable,  and  gives  a  sense  obviously  con- 
sistent with  the  context. 

The  two  objects  which  Paul  here  specifies  as  designed  to  be 
answered  by  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  are  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  icrath  of  God,  and  the  exhibition  of  bis  power. 
The  word  wrath  is  used  here  as  in  ch.  1:  18,  for  the  divine 
displeasure  against  sin,  the  calm  and  holy  disapprobation  of 
evil,  joined  with  the  determination  to  punish  tliose  who  com- 
mit it*  The  power  of  God  is  conspicuously  displayed  in  the 
destruction  of  the  wicked,  no  matter  how  mighty  or  numerous 
they  may  be.  Though  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin  must  ever 
be  regarded  as  the  primary  ground  of  the  infliction  of  punish- 
ment, a  ground  which  would  remain  in  full  force,  were  no  bene- 
ficial results  anticipated  from  the  misery  of  the  wicked,  yet 
God  has  so  ordered  his  government  that  the  evils  which  sinners 
incur  shall  result  in  the  manifestation  of  his  character,  and  the 
consequent  promotion  of  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  his  in- 
telligent creatures  throughout  eternity. 

God  treats  the  wicked,  not  as  a  severe  judge,  but  with  much 
long  suffering.  Tlie  expression  vessels  oftcrath  no  doubt  sug- 
gested itself  from  tlie  illustration  of  tlie  potter  used  in  the  ])re- 
ceding  verse;  thougli  the  term  vessel  is  used  not  unfrequently 
in  reference  to  men.  Acts  9:15.  1  Pet.  3:  7.     Vessels  of  wrath, 

*  Ira  Dei  non,  perturLatio  animi  ejus  cat,  sed  judicium  quo  irrogatur  poena  pcc- 
cato,    August.  De  Civit.  Dei,  1.  1.5,  c.  35,  • 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  405 

i.  e.  vessels  which  deserve  wrath,  or  whicli  nro  to  be  objects  of 
wrath;  as  vessels  of  mercy,  are  those  which  are  to  be  the  objects 
of  mercy;  or  these  phrases  may  mean  vessels  destined  to 
wrath  and  destined  to  mercy,  corresponding  to  the  expres- 
sions vessels  unto  honour  and  unto  dishonour,  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  This  last  explanation,  on  account  of  the  context, 
seems  the  most  probable. 

Fitted  to  destruction.*  The  word  here  used  admits  of  being 
taken  either  as  passive  or  middle,  and  may,  therefore,  be  ren- 
dered as  it  is  in  our  version,  or  who  have  fitted  themselves  for 
destruction.  If  the  passive  sense  be  adopted  then,  the  meaning 
may  be,  jjrepared  by  God  for  destruction;  or  the  participle 
may  be  taken  rather  as  a  verbal  adjective,  fitted  for  destruc- 
tioji,  expressing  merely  the  idea  of  being  ready  for  that  end. 
In  favour  of  this  latter  view,  it  may  be  noticed  that  in  the  next 
verse,  when  speaking  of  the  vessels  of  mercy,  the  active  voice 
is  used,  "which  God  had  before  prepared  unto  glory;"  as  if 
designedly  to  mark  the  difference  between  the  two  cases.  If 
the  other  explanation  {prepared  by  God)  be  adopted,  then,  of 
course,  the  words  must  be  taken  in  a  sense  modified  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  subject,  and  other  passages  of  scripture.  Wicked 
men  are  prepared  for  destruction  by  God,  not  as  being  created 
for  that  purpose,  bgt  as  being  devoted  to  it  on  account  of  their 
sins,  and  borne  with  until  they  are  ripe  for  their  doom.  This 
explanation  is  adopted  not  only  by  the  stronger  Calvinists,  but 
by  many  of  the  neological  commentators.t  There  seems,  how- 
ever, no  valid  objection  to  the  mtevpvetation  prepared  or  fit  for 
destruction;  and  which  is  the  rather  to  be  preferred,  because 
the  apostle,  being  here  engaged  in  vindicating  the  divine  pro- 
ceedings, would  naturally  speak  of  the  objects  of  the  divine 

*  Similar  modes  of  expression  arc  very  common  amonR  the  Jewish  writers. 
Moed  Katon,  fol.  9,  1.  Exiit  iilia  vocis,  dixitque  cis;  vos  omnes  ordinati  estis  ad 
vitam  seculi  futuri.  jMcgilla  fol.  12,  2.  Memuchan,  Esther  1:  14,  i.  e.  Ilamaii. 
Cur  vocatur  nomen  ejus  Memucan?  quia  ordinatus  est  ad  poenas.  li.  Bechai  in 
Pentateuch,  fol.  132.  Gentes  ordinatae  ad  gehcnnam ;  Israel  vero  ad  vitam.  Fol. 
220,  4,  Duas  istas  gentes  vocat  Salomo  duas  filias,  dicitque  ad  geheniiam  ordma- 
tas  esse.  Bechoroth,  fol.  8,  2.  R.  Joseph  docuit,  hi  sunt  Pcrsac,  qui  prcparati 
sunt  in  gehennam.     Wetsteiw  on  Acts  13:  48. 

■}•  Vasa  sunt  in  exitium  comparata;  id  est  devota  et  dcstinata  exitio.— Calvix. 

Homines  facti  ad  perniciem  summam  illam  et  gravissimam. — Koite.  M  hich, 
however,  he  says,  amounts  only  to  this,  Ccrto  inevitabili  fato  pcnturi. 


406  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

wrath  as  being  fitted  for  destruction,  in  the  sense  of  deserving 
it,  &c. 

(23)  Jlnd  that  he  might  inake  known  the  riches  of  his 
glory,  &c.  See  the  preceding  verse  for  the  different  views 
of  the  grammatical  connexion  of  this  verse  with  v.  22.  The 
sense  is  plain,  '  What  right  have  men  to  complain,  if  God 
punishes  the  wicked,  and  manifests  the  riches  of  his  glory  on 
the  objects  of  his  mercy  ?'  The  word  glory  is  used  in  reference 
to  any  thing  in  God  which  is  the  foundation  of  praise.  Hence, 
it  is  used  for  each  of  his  attributes,  as,  for  example,  for  his 
power,  Rom.  6:  4.  John  11:  40;  for  his  mercy,  Eph.  3:16,  and 
here;  or  for  all  his  attributes  collectively,  as  in  2  Cor.  4:  6, 
"  To  give  us  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God, 
&c."  Such,  too,  may  be  its  force  in  this  passage,  as  it  is  not 
mercy  only,  but  wisdom,  power,  goodness,  &c.,  which  are  mani- 
fested in  the  salvation  of  his  people.*  The  word  is  also  fre- 
quently employed  in  reference  to  the  future  blessedness  of  the 
saints.  Eph.  1 :  18,  "  To  know  what  are  the  riches  of  the  glory 
of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints."  This  sense  is  given  to  the 
word,  in  this  case,  by  Tholuck,  but  inconsistently  with  the  con- 
text. As  the  wrath  and  power  of  God  arc  manifested  in  the 
destruction  of  the  wicked,  so  are  the  riches  of  his  glory  in  the 
salvation  of  his  people. 

On  the  vessels  of  mercy,  ivhich  he  had  afore  prepared  unto 
glory.  On  the  phrase  vessels  of  mercy,  see  tlie  preceding 
verse.  The  word  rendered  he  had  afore  prepared  has  this 
signification  frequently;  indeed,  it  is  its  common  and  proper 
meaning.  But  as  to  prepare  beforehand  and  to  predestine 
are  very  nearly  related  ideas,  the  word  is  also  used  in  this  latter 
sense.  Eph.  2:  10,  "Which  God  had  before  ordained  that  we 
should  walk  in  them."  This  meaning  is  commonly  adopted 
here,t  "Which  God  had  fore-ordained  unto  glory;"  see  the 
parallel  passage  in  Acts  13:  48,  "As  many  as  were  ordained 
to  eternal  life,  believed."  The  other  signification  of  the  word, 
however,  gives  a  very  good  sense.  '  Which  he  had  before  pre- 
pared, by  his  providence  and  grace  unto  glory.' 

(24)  Even  its,  ivhom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jeivs  only, 

*    Glorine:   bonitatis,   Rratiao,   niisoriconliar,   sapicutiao,   oitini^iotcntiao,   Eph. 
1 :  fi. — Brno  EL. 
•j-  See  Wahl's  Clavis  on  the  word  irP0ST8i(Aa^w. 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  407 

but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  We  are  the  vessels  of  his  mercy, 
even  we  whom  he  hath  called,  i.  e.  effectually  introduced  by 
his  Spirit  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  see  ch.  8:  28,  30.  How 
naturally  does  the  apostle  here  return  to  the  main  subject  of  dis- 
cussion !  How  skilfully  is  the  conclusion  brought  out  at  which  he 
has  continually  aimed!  God  chose  Isaac  in  preference  to  Ish- 
mael,  Jacob  in  preference  to  Esau,  it  is  a  prerogative  which  he 
claims  and  exercises,  of  selecting  from  among  the  guilty  family  of 
men  whom  he  pleases  as  the  objects  of  his  mercy,  and  leaving 
whom  he  pleases  to  perish  in  their  sins,  unrestricted  in  his  choice 
by  the  descent  or  previous  conduct  of  the  individuals.  He  has 
mercy  upon  whom  he  will  have  mercy.  He  calls  men,  there- 
fore, from  among  the  Gentiles  and  from  among  the  Jews  indis- 
criminately. This  is  the  result  at  which  the  apostle  aimed. 
The  Gentiles  are  admitted  into  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  vs.  25, 
26;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  are  excluded,  v.  27.*  This 
conclusion  he  confirms  by  explicit  declarations  of  scripture. 

Doctrines. 

1.  No  external  circumstance,  no  descent  from  pious  parents, 
no  connexion  with  the  true  church,  can  secure  admission  for 
men  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  vs.  6 — 12. 

2.  Paul  teaches  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  election  of 
men  to  eternal  life,  an  election  founded  not  on  works,  but  on  the 
good  pleasure  of  God.  The  choice  is  to  eternal  life,  and  not  to 
external  privileges  merely.  1.  Because  the  very  point  to  be 
illustrated  and  established  through  this  and  the  two  following 
chapters,  is  the  free  admission  of  men  into  the  Messiah's  kingdom 
and  its  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings.  2.  Because  the  language 
of  the  apostle  seems  of  itself  to  preclude  the  other  idea,  in  vs.  15, 
16,  and  especially  in  v.  18,  "  Therefore  he  hath  mercy  on  whom 
he  will,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth."  This  is  not  ap])lieable 
to  the  reception  of  men  to  a  state  of  peculiar  external  privileges 
or  their  rejection  from  it.  3.  The  case  of  Pharaoh  is  not  an 
illustration  of  the  refusal  to  admit  some  men  to  peculiar  privi- 

*  Ex  disputatione,  quam  hactenus  Ac  libcrtate  divinae  olectionis  habuit,  duo 
consequebantur :  ncmpe  Dei  gratiam  non  ita  inclusam  esse  in  populo  Juduico,  ut 
non  ad  alias  quoquc  nationes  emanare,  et  in  orbem  universum  cirundere  sc  posset : 
dcindc  ne  sic  quidem  alligatam  esse  Judaeis,  ut  ad  omnes  Abraliac  filios  secundum 
carnem  sine  exccptionc  pcrvcniat. — Calvis. 


408  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

leges.     4.  The  choice  is  between  the  vessels  of  mercy  and  ves- 
sels of  wrath;  vessels  of  mercy  chosen  unto  glory,  not  unto 
church  privileges,  and  vessels  of  wrath  who  were  to  be  made 
the  examples  of  God's  displeasure  against  sin.     5.  The  charac- 
ter of  the  objections  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  show  that  such 
was  the  nature  of  the  choice.     If  this  election  is  to  eternal  life, 
it  is,  of  course,  a  choice  of  individuals,  and  not  of  communi- 
ties.    This  is  still  further  proved  by  the  cases  of  Isaac  and  Ish- 
mael,  and  Jacob  and  Esau,  between  whom,  as  individuals,  the 
choice  was  made.     2.  From  the  illustration  derived  from  the 
case  of  Pharaoli.     3.  From  the  objections  presented  in  vs.  14, 
19.     4.  From  the  answer  to  these  objections  in  vs.  15,  16,  20, 
23,  especially  from  the  passage  just  referred  to,  which  speaks 
of  the  vessels  of  mercy  prepared  unto  glory;  which  cannot  be 
applied  to  nations  or  communities.     This  election  is  sovereign, 
i.  e.  is  founded  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  and  not  on  any 
thing  in   its  objects.       1.  Because  this  is  expressly  asserted. 
The  choice  between  Jacob  and  Esau  was  made  prior  to  birth, 
that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  founded  on  works,  but  on 
the  good  pleasure  of  God,  v.  11.     The  same  is  clearly  stated  in 
V.  16,  "  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  or  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy;"  and  also  in  v.  IS,  "There- 
fore he  iiath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  &c."     The  decision  rests 
with  God.     2.  Because  otherwise  there  would  be  no  shadow  of 
objection  to  the  doctrine.     How  could  men  say  it  was  unjust 
if  God  chose  one  and  rejected  another  according  to  their  works  ? 
And  how  could  any  one  object,  as  in  v.  19,  '  that  as  the  will  of 
God  could  not  be  resisted,  men  were  not  to  be  blamed,'  if  the 
decision  in  question  did  not  depend  on  the  will  of  God,  but  on 
that  of  men?    How  easy  for  the  apostle  to  have  answered  the 
objector,  '  You  are  mistaken,  the  choice  is  not  of  God,  he  does 
not  choose  whom  he  wills,  but  who  he  sees  will  choose  him. 
It  is  not  his  will,  but  man's  that  decides  the  point.'     Paul  does 
not  so  answer,  but  vindicates  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  sove- 
reignty.    The  fact,  therefore,  that  Paul  had  to  answer  the  same 
objections  which  arc  now  constantly  urged  against  the  doctrine 
of  election,  goes  far  to  show  that  that  doctrine  was  his.     3.  That 
the  election  is  sovereign,  is  taught  elsewhere  in  scripture.     In 
2  Tim.  1:  9,  it  is  said  to  be  "  not  according  to  our  works,  but 
according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace."    Eph.  1 :  5,  it  is  said 


ROMANS  9:  6—24.  409 

to  be  "  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,"  i.  e.  his 
sovereign  pleasure.  4.  This  view  alone  harmonises  with  the 
doctrine,  that  all  good  thoughts  and  right  purposes  and  feelings 
proceed  from  God,  which  is  clearly  taught  in  the  scriptures. 
For  if  the  purpose  not  to  resist  '  common  grace,'  is  a  right 
purpose,  it  is  of  God,  and,  of  course,  it  is  of  him  that  one  man 
forms  it,  and  another  does  not.  5.  This  doctrine  is  alone  con- 
sistent with  Christian  experience.  "  Why  was  I  made  to  hear 
thy  voice  ?"  No  Christian  answers  this  question  by  saying, 
because  I  was  better  than  others. 

3.  The  two  leading  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  election, 
viz.  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  character,  and  incom- 
patible with  human  responsibility,  are  answered  by  the  apostle. 
It  cannot  be  unjust,  because  God  claims  and  exercises  the  right 
of  sovereign  choice.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  human  respon- 
sibility, because  God  does  not  make  men  wicked.  Though,  as 
their  Creator,  he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  wicked  men  as  he 
pleases,  he  only,  of  the  same  corrupt  mass,  chooses  one  to 
honour,  and  the  other  to  dishonour,  vs.  14 — 23. 

4.  Scripture  must  ever  be  consistent  with  itself.  The  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews  could  not  be  inconsistent  with  any  of  God's 
promises,  v.  6. 

5.  The  true  children  of  God  become  such  only  in  virtue  of 
a  divine  promise,  or  by  the  special  exercise  of  his  grace.  They 
are  born  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God,  v.  8. 

6.  Though  children  prior  to  birth  do  neither  good  nor  evil, 
yet  they  may  be  naturally  depraved.  They  neither  hunger  nor 
thirst,  yet  are  hunger  and  thirst  natural  appetites.  They  ex- 
ercise neither  love  nor  anger,  yet  are  these  natural  passions. 
They  know  probably  neither  joy  nor  sorrow,  yet  are  these 
natural  emotions,  v.  11. 

7.  The  manifestation  of  the  divine  perfections  is  the  last  and 
highest  end  of  all  things,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 

8.  The  fact  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God  (that 
it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  or  him  that  runneth),  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  necessity  of  the  use  of  means.  The  fact  that  the 
character  of  the  harvest  depends  on  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God, 
does  not  render  the  labour  of  the  husbandinan  of  no  account.  The 
same  God  who  says,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will,'* 

52 


410  ROMANS  9:  6—24. 

says  also,  "  Work  out  your  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling/' 
The  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  necessity  of  human  efforts 
are  both  clearly  taught  in  the  scriptures.  At  times  the  former, 
as  in  this  chapter,  at  times  the  latter  doctrine  is  most  insisted 
upon.  Neither  should  be  forgotten  or  neglected,  as  both  con- 
spire to  produce  the  right  impression  on  the  mind,  and  to  lead 
us  to  God  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment,  v.  16. 

9.  Men,  considered  as  the  objects  of  election,  are  regarded  as 
fallen.  It  is  from  the  corrupt  mass  that  God  chooses  one 
vessel  to  honour  and  one  to  dishonour,  vs.  22,  23. 

10.  The  judicial  abandonment  of  men  to  their  own  ways,  the 
giving  them  up  to  work  out  their  own  destruction,  is  a  right- 
eous but  dreadful  doom,  vs.  18,  22,  also  ch.  1:  24,  26. 

Hemarks. 

1.  If  descent  from  Abraham,  participation  in  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  theocracy,  the  true  and  only  church,  failed  to  secure 
for  the  Jews  the  favour  of  God,  how  foolish  the  expectation  of 
those  who  rely  on  outward  ordinances  and  church-relations  as 
the  ground  of  their  acceptance,  vs.  6 — 1 3. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  choice  of 
the  objects  of  his  mercy  should  produce,  1.  The  most  profound 
humility  in  those  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose. 
They  are  constrained  to  say,  "  Not  unto  us,  not  unto  us,  but 
unto  thy  name  be  all  the  glory."  2.  The  liveliest  gratitude, 
that  we,  though  so  unworthy,  should  from  eternity  have  been 
selected  as  the  objects  in  which  God  will  display  "  the  riches 
of  his  glory,"  3.  Confidence  and  peace,  under  all  circumstances, 
because  the  purpose  of  God  does  not  change;  Avhom  he  has 
predestinated,  them  he  also  calls,  justifies  and  glorifies.  4.  Dili- 
gence in  the  discharge  of  all  duty,  to  make  our  calling  and 
election  sure.  That  is,  to  make  it  evident  to  ourselves  and 
others,  that  we  are  the  called  and  chosen  of  God.  We  should 
ever  remember  that  election  is  to  holiness,  and  consequently  to 
live  in  sin,  is  to  invalidate  every  claim  to  be  considered  as  one 
of  "God's  elect." 

3.  As  God  is  the  immutable  standard  of  right  and  truth,  the 
proper  method  to  answer  objections  against  the  doctrines  Ave 
profess,  is  to  appeal  to  what  God  says,  and  to  what  he  does. 
Any  objection  that  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  any 


ROMANS  9:  25— 33.  411 

declaration  of  scripture,  or  with  any  fact  in  providence  is  suffi- 
ciently answered,  vs.  15,  17. 

4.  It  should,  therefore,  be  assumed  as  a  first  principle  that 
God  cannot  do  wrong.  If  he  does  a  thing,  it  must  be  right. 
And  it  is  much  safer  for  us,  corrupt  and  blinded  mortals,  thus 
to  argue,  than  to  pursue  the  opposite  course,  and  maintain  that 
God  does  not  and  cannot  do  so  and  so,  because  in  our  judgment 
it  would  be  wrong,  vs.  15 — 19. 

5.  All  cavilling  against  God  is  wicked.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  our  relation  to  him  as  our  Creator.  It  is  a  manifestation 
of  self-ignorance,  and  of  irreverence  to  God,  v.  20. 

6.  What  proof  of  piety  is  there  in  believing  our  own  eyes, 
or  in  receiving  the  deductions  of  our  own  reasoning  ?  But  to 
confide  in  God,  when  clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him; 
to  be  sure  that  what  he  does  is  right,  and  that  what  he  says  is 
true,  when  we  cannot  see  how  either  the  one  or  the  other  can 
be,  this  is  acceptable  in  his  sight.  And  to  this  trial  he  sub- 
jects all  his  people,  vs.  20 — 24. 

7.  If  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  is  the  highest  end 
of  God  in  creation,  providence  and  redemption,  it  is  the  end  for 
which  we  should  live  and  be  willing  to  die.  To  substitute  any 
other  end,  as  our  own  glory  and  advantage,  is  folly,  sin  and  self- 
destruction,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 

8.  The  fact  that  God  says  to  some  men,  "Let  them  alone;" 
that  "he  gives  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind;"  that  he  with- 
holds from  them,  in  punishment  of  their  sins,  the  influences  of 
his  Spirit,  should  fill  all  the  impenitent  with  alarm.  It  should 
lead  them  to  obey  at  once  his  voice,  lest  he  swear  in  his  wrath 
that  they  shall  never  enter  into  his  rest,  vs.  17,  18. 

9.  We  and  all  things  else  are  in  the  hands  of  God.  He 
worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  The  Lord 
reigns,  let  the  earth  rejoice,  vs.  14 — 24. 


CHAP.  9:  25—33. 

The  conclusion  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived  in  the  pre- 
ceding section,  was,  that  God  was  at  liberty  to  select  the  objects 
of  his  mercy,  indiscriminately,  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 


412  ROMANS  9:  25—33. 

Jews.  This  conclusion  he  now  confirms  by  the  declarations  of 
the  Old  Testament,  according  to  which  it  is  clear,  1.  That 
those  were  to  be  included  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  who  origi- 
nally were  considered  as  aliens,  vs.  25,  26;  and  2.  That,  as  to 
the  Israelites,  only  a  small  portion  should  attain  to  the  blessings 
of  the  Messiah's  reign,  and  of  course,  the  mere  being  a  Jew  by 
birth  was  no  security  of  salvation,  vs.  27 — 29.  The  inference 
from  all  this  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  called,  and  the  Jews,  as 
Jews,  are  rejected,  vs.  30,  31.  The  reason  of  this  rejection  is 
that  they  would  not  submit  to  the  terms  of  salvation  presented 
in  the  gospel,  v.  32.  As  it  had  been  long  before  predicted,  they 
rejected  their  Messiah,  taking  offence  at  him,  seeing  in  him  no 
form  or  comeliness,  that  they  should  desire  him,  v.  33. 

Commentary. 
(25)  The  first  part  of  the  general  conclusion,  contained  in  the 
24th  verse,  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  eligible  to  the  blessings 
of  Christ's  kingdom.  This  the  apostle  confirms  by  two  passages 
from  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  which  express  the  general 
sentiment,  that  those  who,  under  the  old  economy,  were  not 
regarded  as  the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter  (i.  e.  under  the 
Messiah)  become  his  people.  The  first  passage  cited  is  from 
Hosea  2:  23,  which  in  our  version  is,  "I  will  have  mercy  on 
her  that  had  not  obtained  mercy;  and  I  will  say  to  them  which 
were  not  my  people,  thou  art  my  people."  The  Hebrew, 
however,  admits  of  the  rendering  given  by  the  apostle,  as  the 
word  translated  to  have  mercy  may  signif}^  to  love.  The 
difficulty  with  regard  to  this  passage  is,  that  in  Hosea  it  evi- 
dently has  reference  not  to  the  heathen,  but  to  tlie  ten  tribes. 
Whereas,  Paul  refers  it  to  the  Gentiles  as  is  also  done  by  Peter, 
1  Pet.  2:  10.  This  difficulty  is  sometimes  gotten  over  by 
giving  a  different  view  of  the  apostle's  object  in  the  citation,  and 
making  it  refer  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  But  this  inter- 
pretation is  obviously  at  variance  with  the  context.  It  is  more 
satisfactory  to  say,  that  the  ten  tribes  were  in  a  heathenisli  state, 
relapsed  into  idokitry,  and,  therefore,  wliat  was  said  of  them,  is 
of  course  applicable  to  others  in  like  circumstances,  or  of  like 
character.  What  amounts  to  much  the  same  thing,  the  senti- 
ment of  the  prophet  is  to  be  taken  generally,  '  those  who  were 
excluded  from  the  theocracy,  who  were  regarded  and  treated 


ROMANS  9:  25—33.  413 

as  aliens,  were  hereafter  to  be  treated  as  the  people  of  God.'  In 
this  view,  it  is  perfectly  applicable  to  the  apostle's  object, 
which  was  to  convince  the  Jews,  that  the  blessings  of  Christ's 
kingdom  were  not  to  be  confined  within  the  pale  of  the  Old 
Testament  economy,  or  limited  to  those  who,  in  their  external 
relations,  were  considered  the  people  of  God ;  on  the  contrary, 
those  who,  according  to  the  rules  of  that  economy,  were  not 
the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter  become  such.  This  method 
of  interpreting  and  applying  scripture  is  both  common  and 
correct.  A  general  truth,  stated  in  reference  to  a  particular 
class  of  persons,  is  to  be  considered  as  intended  to  apply  to  all 
those  whose  character  and  circumstances  are  the  same,  though 
the  form  or  words  of  the  original  enunciation  may  not  be  ap- 
plicable to  all  embraced  within  the  scope  of  the  general  senti- 
ment. Thus  what  is  said  of  one  class  of  heathen,  as  such,  is 
applicable  to  all  others,  and  what  is  said  of  one  portion  of  aliens 
from  the  Old  Testament  covenant,  may  properly  be  referred  to 
others. 

(2G)  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where  it 
ivas  said  to  them,  ye  are  not  my  people,  &c.  This  (piotation 
is  more  strictly  conformed  to  tlie  Hebrew,  than  tlie  preceding. 
It  is  from  Hos.  1:  10.     The  sentiment  is  the  same  as  before. 

(27,  28)  The  second  part  of  the  apostle's  conclusion,  v.  21,  is 
that  the  Jews,  as  such,  were  not  to  be  included  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  which  of  course  is  implied  in  all  those  predictions  which 
speak  of  them  as  in  general  cut  off  and  rejected.  Two  such 
passages  Paul  quotes  from  Isaiah.  The  first  is  from  Isaiah  10:  22, 
23.  Though  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel  be  as  the 
sand  of  the  sea,  a  remnant  shall  be  saved,  for  he  will  finish 
the  work  and  cut  it  short  in  righteousyiess:  because  a  short 
work  will  the  Lord  make  in  the  earth.  This  passage  is  nearer 
the  LXX.  translation  than  the  Hebrew.  The  general  sense  is 
the  same  in  both,  and  also  in  the  apostle's  version,  'However 
numerous  the  children  of  Israel  might  be,  only  a  small  portion  of 
them  should  escape  the  judgments  of  God.'  This  being  the 
case,  it  is  evident  that  the  mere  being  a  Jew  was  never  consid- 
ered sufficient  to  secure  the  divine  favour.  The  portion  of  the 
prophecy  contained  in  v.  27,  is  the  principal  point,  '  Only  a 
few  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  saved.'     What  is  contained  in  v. 


414  ROMANS  9:  25—33. 

28,  is  an  amplification,  or  states  the  converse  of  the  preceding 
proposition.  '  Most  of  the  Jews  should  be  cut  off.'  The  pas- 
sage in  Isaiah,  therefore,  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  apostle's 
object* 

Our  version  of  v.  2S  is  consistent  with  the  original.!  But  it 
may  also  be  rendered,  "  He  will  execute  and  determine  on  the 
judgment  with  righteousness,  for  a  judgment  determined  on, 
will  the  Lord  execute  in  the  earth."  The  word  (Xoyov)  rendered 
ivork  in  our  version,  means  properly  a  word,  something  spoken, 
and  may  refer  to  a  promise,  or  threatening,  according  to  the 
context.  Here  of  course  a  threatening  is  intcnde-d ;  the  judg- 
ment threatened  by  the  prophet  in  the  context.  The  word 
(tfuvTsXwv)  rendered  he  will  finish,  means  bringing  to  an  end, 
and  here  perhaps  executing  at  once,  bringing  to  an  end 
speedily.  And  the  term  ((TuvTsfjLvwv)  translated  cutting  short, 
may  mean  deciding  upon.  See  Dan.  9:  24,  "Seventy  weeks 
are  determined  (CuvjrfA^Siio'av)  upon  my  people."  But  the  ordi- 
nary sense  of  the  word  is  in  favour  of  our  version  and  so  is  the 
context.^  If  it  were  allowable  to  take  the  same  word  in  different 
senses  in  the  same  passage,  the  verse  might  be  rendered  thus, 
*For  he  will  execute  the  judgment,  and  accomplish  it  speedily, 
for  the  judgment  determined  upon  will  the  Lord  execute  in 
the  earth.'  This  same  word  is  used  in  one  of  these  senses, 
Dan.  9:  24,  and  in  the  other  in  v.  2Q  of  the  same  chapter. 
See,  too,  an  analogous  example  in  1  Cor.  3:  17,  "If  any  man 
((p^si^si)  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  {cphs^si)  destroy." 
Here  the  same  word  is  rendered  correctly,  first  defile,  and  tlien 

•  Sed  quia  id  dc  suo  tempore  vaticinatus  est  prophcta ;  videndum,  quomodo  ad 
institutum  suum  Paulus  rite  accommodet.  Sic  autcm  debet :  Quum  Dominus 
vellet  e  captivitatc  Babylonica  populum  suum  libcrare,  ex  immensa  ilia  multitudine 
ad  paucissimos  modo  liberationis  suae  bcncficium  pcrvcnire  voluit;  qui  excidii 
reliquiae  merito  dici  posscnt  prae  numeroso  ilio  populo  quem  in  exilio  perire  sincbat. 
Jam  restitutio  ilia  carualis  veram  ecclcsiac  Dei  instaurationcm  figuravit,  quae  in 
Christo  peragitur,  imo  ejus  duntaxat  fuit  exordium.  Quod  ergo  tunc  accidit,  multo 
certius  nunc  adimplcri  convenit  in  ipso  liberationis  progressu  et  complemento. — 
Calvin. 

■j-  Calvin  translates  it  much  in  the  same  way,  Scrmonem  enim  consummans  et 
abbrevians,  quoniam  scrmonem  abbreviatum  faciet  Dominus  in  terra. 

4:  Sec  Kopr-K  and  Wetstein  for  a  satisfactory  exhibition  of  the  vsus  loqumdi 
as  to  this  word. 


ROMANS  9:  25—33.  415 

destroy.     We  may,  therefore,  render  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  either  as  in  our  version  or  as  given  above.* 

(29)  The  second  passage  quoted  by  the  apostle  is  from  Is.  1: 
9,  Except  the  Lord  of  hosts  had  left  us  a  seed  we  had  been  as 
Sodom,  been  made  like  unto  Gomorrah.  The  object  of  this 
quotation  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding,  viz.  to  show  that 
being  Israelites  was  not  enough  to  secure  either  exemption 
from  divine  judgments  or  the  enjoyment  of  God's  favour.  The 
passage  is  perfectly  in  point,  for  although  the  prophet  is  speak- 
ing of  the  national  judgments  which  the  people  had  brought 
upon  themselves  by  their  sins,  and  by  which  they  were  well 
nigh  cut  off  entirely,  yet  it  was  necessai-ily  involved  in  the 
destruction  of  the  people  for  their  idolatry  and  other  crimes, 
that  they  perished  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Of  course  the 
passage  strictly  proves  what  Paul  designed  to  establish,  viz. 
that  the  Jews,  as  Jews,  were  as  much  exposed  to  God's  judg- 
ments as  others,  and  consequently  could  lay  no  special  claim  to 
admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Paul  here  again  follows  the  Septuagint.  The  only  differ- 
ence, however,  is  that  the  Greek  version  has  (Cffi^fxa)  a  seed, 
instead  of  a  remnant,  as  it  is  in  the  Hebrew.  The  sense  is 
precisely  the  same.  The  Hebrew  word  means  that  luhich 
remains;  and  seed,  as  used  in  this  passage,  means  the  seed  pre- 
served for  sowing.  The  figure,  therefore,  is  striking  and  beau- 
tiful. Lord  of  Hosts  is  a  frequent  designation  for  the  Supreme 
God  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  the  word  host  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  any  multitude  arranged  in  order,  as  of  men  in  an  army, 
of  angels,  of  the  stars,  or  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies  including 
the  sun  and  moon,  so  the  expression  Lord  of  hosts  may  mean 
Lord  of  armies.  Lord  of  angels,  or  Lord  of  heaven,  or  of  the 

»  The  passage  in  the  Hebrew  is  difficult.  It  may  be  literally  translated,  "The 
consumption  is  determined  upon,  it  flows  on  bringing  judgment ;  for  consumption, 
even  the  thuig  determined  upon,  will  the  Lord  God  of  hosts  execute  in  the  midst 
of  the  whole  land."  See  Gesenius.  The  common  version  expresses  the  sense 
nearly  in  the  same  form,  "  The  consumption  decreed  shall  overflow  with  righteous- 
ness, for  the  Lord  God  of  hosts  shall  make  a  consumption,  even  determined  in  the 
midst  of  the  whole  land."  As,  however,  the  word  rendered  determined  signifies 
also  cut  off,  the  whole  passage  admits  of  a  rendering  in  accordance  with  that  given 
by  the  apostle.  "For  the  consumption  shaU  be  cut  short,  overflowing  in  right- 
eousness. For  a  consumption,  and  that  a  short  one,  will  the  Lord  make,  &c  " 
See  ScHELLiXG,  as  quoted  by  Rosesmukller  on  Isaiah  10 :  22,  23. 


416  ROMANS  9:  25—33. 

universe  as  a  marshalled  host;  see  1  Kings  22:  19,  "  I  saAV  the 
Lord  sitting  on  his  throne  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing 
by  him;"  2  Chron.  IS:  11.  Ps.  103:  21.  Ps.  148:  2,  "Praise 
ye  him,  all  his  angels,  praise  ye  him,  all  his  hosts."  In  other 
passages  the  reference  is,  with  equal  distinctness,  to  the  stars, 
Jer.  S3:  22.  Deut.  4:  19,  and  frequently.  It  is  most  probable, 
therefore,  that  God  is  called  Lord  of  hosts  in  reference  to  his 
headship  over  the  whole  heavens,  and  all  that  they  contain, 
Lord  of  hosts  being  equivalent  to  Lord  of  the  universe. 

(30)  Having  proved  that  God  was  free  to  call  the  Gen- 
tiles as  well  as  the  Jews  into  his  kingdom,  and  that  it  had  been 
predicted  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  rejected, 
he  comes  now  to  state  the  immediate  ground  of  this  rejection. 
tVhat  shall  we  say  then?  This  may  mean  cither,  'What  is 
the  inference  from  the  preceding  discussion  ?'  and  the  answer 
follows,  '  The  conclusion  is,  the  Gentiles  are  called  and  the 
Jews  rejected;'  or,  'What  shall  we  say,  or  object  to  the  fact 
that  the  Gentiles  are  accepted,'  &c.  &c.  So  Flatt  and  others. 
But  the  former  explanation  is  better  suited  to  the  context,  espe- 
cially to  V.  32,  and  to  the  apostle's  common  use  of  this  expres- 
sion; see  V.  14,  ch.  7:  7.  8:  31. 

That  the  Gentiles,  which  followed  not  after  righteousness, 
have  attained,  &c.  The  inference  is,  that  what  to  all  human 
probability  was  the  most  unlikely  to  occur,  has  actually  taken 
place.  The  Gentiles,  sunk  in  carelessness  and  sin,  have  attained 
the  favour  of  God,  while  the  Jews,  to  whom  religion  was  a 
business,  have  utterly  failed.  Why  is  this  ?  The  reason  is 
given  in  v.  32;  it  was  because  they  would  not  submit  to  be 
saved  on  the  terms  which  God  proposed,  but  insisted  on  reaching 
heaven  in  their  own  way.  Tofolloiv  after  righteousness,  is  to 
press  forward  towards  it  as  towards  the  prize  in  a  race,  Phil.  3: 
14.  The  word  (5ixaio(r;jv>)),  rendered  righteousness,  might  more 
properly  be  rendered  justification,  tlie  consequence  of  having 
fulfdlcd  the  law;  a  state  of  favour  with  God.  It,  therefore,  in- 
cludes all  the  blessings  consequent  on  union  to  Christ;  see  Gal. 
2:  21.  3:  21.  5:  5.  This  the  Gentiles  did  not  seek  after,  they 
cared  nothing  about  the  favour  of  God  and  tlic  blessings  there- 
with connected.  But  still  they  attained,  to  righteousness,  i.  e. 
as  h(i(oro.  Just  if  cation,  all  the  consequences  of  being  righteous 
in  the  estimation  of  God. 


ROMANS  9:  25— 33.  417 

Even  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith,  i.  e.  even  that 
justification  which  is  attained  by  faith.  In  all  these  clauses 
however,  the  word  righteousness,  as  expressing  the  sum  of  the 
divine  requisitions,  that  which  fulfils  the  law  may  be  retained. 
'  The  Gentiles  did  not  seek  this  righteousness,  yet  they  attained 
it;  not  that  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which 
is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  (accept- 
able to  God)  by  faith,'  Phil.  3:  9.  They  obtained  that  which 
satisfied  the  demands  of  the  law,  and  was  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God.  It  is  very  probable  that  Paul  included  both 
ideas  in  the  word  which  he  used,  that  is,  both  the  excellence 
which  satisfied  the  law,  i.  e.  righteousness,  and  its  consequence, 
i.  e.  justification. 

(31)  What  the  Gentiles  thus  attained,  the  Jews  fiiiled  to  se- 
cure. The  former  he  had  described  as  "  not  followins:  after 
righteousness;"  the  latter  he  characterizes  as  those  who  follow 
after  the  law  of  righteousness.  The  expression  law  ofrig/it- 
eousness  may  be  variously  explained.  Law  may  be  taken  in 
its  general  sense  of  rule,  as  in  ch.  3:  27,  and  elsewhere.  The 
meaning  would  then  be,  '  They  followed  after,  i.  e.  they  at- 
tended diligently  to,  the  rule  which  they  thought  would  lead 
to  their  attaining  righteousness  or  being  justified,  but  they  did 
not  attain  unto  that  rule  which  actually  leads  to  such  results.' 
Or,  2.  The  word  law  may  be  redundant,  and  Paul  may  mean 
to  say  nothing  more  than  that '  The  Jews  sought  righteousness 
or  justification,  but  did  not  attain  it.'  This,  no  doubt,  is  the 
substance,  though  it  may  not  be  the  precise  form  of  the  thought. 
In  favour  of  this  view  is  a  comparison  with  the  preceding  and 
succeeding  verses,  and  the  fact  that  the  word  is  elsewhere 
nearly  redundant,  as  "law  of  sin,"  ch.  7:  23,  for  sin  itself. 
3.  Law  of  righteousness  is  often  understood  here  as  equiva- 
lent to  legal  righteousness,  or,  righteousness  ivhich  is  of 
the  law.  This,  however,  is  rather  forced,  and  not  very  con- 
sistent with  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  "  Have  not  attained 
to  the  law  of  righteousness,"  which  can  hardly  be  so  inter- 
preted. The  term,  however,  may  have  one  sense  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse  and  a  different  one  at  the  close;  and  the  passage 
be  thus  rendered,  '  Israel,  following  after  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  the  law,  hath  not  attained  to  the  true  rule  of  right- 
eousness.'    This  suits  the  context,  and  is  in  accordance  with 

53 


418  ROMANS  9:  25—33. 

Paul's  manner.*  The  first  interpretation,  however,  is  probably 
the  most  correct. 

(32)  The  reason  why  the  Jews  failed  of  securing  the  divine 
favour  is  thus  stated.  Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith, 
but,  as  it  were,  by  the  ivorks  of  the  law.  In  other  words,  they 
would  not  submit  to  the  method  of  justification  proposed  by  God, 
which  was  alone  suitable  for  sinners,  and  persisted  in  trusting  to 
their  own  imperfect  works.  The  reason  why  one  man  believes 
and  is  saved,  rather  than  another,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  sovereign 
grace  of  God,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine  in  the  preceding 
part  of  this  chapter,  and  ch.  8:  28.  2  Tim.  1:  9,  &c.;  but  the 
ground  of  the  rejection  and  condemnation  of  men  is  always  in 
themselves.  The  vessels  of  wrath  which  are  destroyed,  are  de- 
stroyed on  account  of  their  sins.  No  man,  therefore,  can  throw 
the  blame  of  his  perdition  on  any  other  than  himself  This  verse, 
therefore,  is  very  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  divine  sovereignty  as  taught  above.  The  force  of  the 
word  rendered  as  it  ivere,  may  be  explained  by  paraphrasing 
the  clause  thus,  '  as  though  they  supposed  it  could  be  obtained 
by  the  works  of  the  law.'t  See  2  Cor.  3:  5.  2:  7,  '  They  sought 
it  as  {being)  of  the  works  of  the  law.'  For  they  stumbled  at 
that  stumbling  stone.  That  is,  they  did  as  it  had  been  pre- 
dicted they  would  do,  they  took  offence  at  the  Messiah  and  at 
the  plan  of  salvation  which  he  came  to  reveal. 

(33)  What  it  was  they  stumbled  at,  the  apostle  declares  in 
this  verse,  and  shows  that  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah  by  the 
Jews  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  Jls  it  is  written, 
Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stumbling  stone  and  a  rock  of  of- 
fence; and  ivhosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  he  ashamed. 

This  passage  is  apparently  made  up  of  two,  one  occurring  in 
Is.  28:  16,  the  other  in  Is.  8:  14.  In  both  of  these  passages 
mention  is  made  of  a  stone,  but  the  predicates  of  this  stone,  as 
given  in  the  latter  passage,  are  transferred  to  the  other,  and 
those  there  mentioned  omitted.     Tliis  method  of  quoting  scrip- 

•  Jam  priori  loco  IjCE;cni  justitiao  per  livpallaircn  posuissc  mihi  vitlctur  pro  jus- 
titia  legis:  in  repftitiono  spoiiKli  meniliri  alio  sensu  sic,  vocasse  justitiac  forinain 
seu  regularn.  Itainic  Huiiiiiia  est,  quoil  Israel  in  legis  jusliliam  insistcns  cam 
scilicet  quae  in  lege  pracscripta  est,  verani  justificationis  rationem  non  tcnucrit. 
— Calvin. 

t  Waul's  Lexicon  N.  T.  p.  678.     Wineh'b  Gramraatik,  497. 


ROMANS  9:  25—33.  419 

ture  is  common  among  all  writers,  especially  where  the  several 
passages  quoted  and  merged  into  each  other,  refer  to  the  same 
subject.  It  is  obvious  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
are  verj^  free  in  their  mode  of  quoting  from  the  Old,  giving 
the  sense,  as  they,  being  inspired  by  the  same  Spirit,  could  do 
authoritatively,  without  binding  themselves  strictly  to  the 
words.  The  former  of  the  two  passages  here  referred  to,  stands 
thus,  in  our  version,  "  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  a 
stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner  stone,  a  sure  foundation; 
he  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste,"  which  is  according  to 
the  Hebrew.  The  other  passage.  Is.  8:  14,  is,  "And  he  shall 
be  for  a  sanctuary;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of 
offence  to  both  houses  of  Israel." 

Isaiah  28,  is  a  prophecy  against  those  who  had  various  false 
grounds  of  confidence,  and  who  desired  a  league  with  Egypt 
as  a  defence  against  the  attacks  of  the  Ass3^rians.  God  says,  he 
has  laid  a  much  more  secure  foundation  for  his  church  than  any 
such  confederacy,  even  a  precious,  tried  corner  stone;  those 
who  confided  on  it  should  never  be  confounded.  The  prophets, 
constantly  filled  with  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  and,  in 
general,  ignorant  of  the  time  of  his  advent,  were  accustomed, 
on  every  threatened  danger,  to  comfort  the  people  by  the  as- 
surance that  the  efforts  of  their  enemies  could  not  prevail, 
because  the  Messiah  was  to  come.  Until  his  advent,  they  could 
not,  as  a  people,  be  destroyed,  and  when  he  came,  there  should 
be  a  glorious  restoration  of  all  things;  see  Is.  7:  14 — 16,  and 
elsewhere.  There  is,  therefore,  no  force  in  the  objection,  that 
the  advent  of  Christ  was  an  event  too  remote  to  be  available 
to  the  consolation  of  the  people,  when  threatened  with  the  im- 
mediate invasion  of  their  enemies.  This  passage,  therefore,  is 
properly  quoted  by  the  apostle,  because  it  was  intended  origi- 
nally to  apply  to  Christ.  The  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament so  understood  and  explain  it;  see  1  Peter  2:  6.  Matt. 
21:  42.  Acts  4:  11;  compare  also  Ps.  118:  22.  1  Cor.  3:  II. 
Eph.  2:  20,  and  other  passages,  in  which  Christ  is  spoken  of  as 
the  foundation  or  corner  stone  of  his  church.  The  same  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  was  given  by  the  ancient  Jews.* 
The  other  passage.  Is.  8:  14,  is  of  much  the  same  character. 

*  Martini   Pugio  Fidci,  Lib.  11.  cap.  5,  p.  342,  and  the  passages  quoted  by 
KosenmiUler  and  Gescnius  on  Is.  28:  16. 


420  ROMANS  9:  25—33. 

God  exhorts  the  people  not  to  be  afraid  of  the  combination  be- 
tween Syria  and  Ephraim.  The  Lord  of  hosts  was  to  be  feared 
and  trusted,  he  would  be  a  refuge  to  those  who  confided  in 
him,  but  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence  to  all  others. 
This  passage  too,  as  appears  from  a  comparison  of  the  one 
previously  cited  with  Ps.  118:  22,  and  the  quotation  and  appli- 
cation of  them  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  refers  to  Christ. 
What  is  said  in  the  Old  Testament  of  Jehovah,  the  inspired 
penmen  of  the  New  do  not  hesitate  to  refer  to  the  Saviour; 
compare  John  12:  41.  Is.  6:  1.  Heb.  1:  10,  11.  Ps.  102:  25.  1 
Cor.  10:  9.  Ex.  17:  2,  7.  When  God,  therefore,  declared  that  he 
should  be  a  sanctuary  to  one  class  of  the  people,  and  a  rock  of 
offence  to  another,  he  meant  that  he,  in  the  person  of  his  Son, 
as  the  Immanuel,  would  thus  be  confided  in  by  some,  but  re- 
jected and  despised  by  others.  The  whole  spirit,  opinions  and 
expectations  of  the  Jews  were  adverse  to  the  person,  character 
and  doctrines  of  the  Redeemer.  He  was,  therefore,  to  them  a 
stumbling  block,  as  he  was  to  others  foolishness.  They  could 
not  recognize  him  as  their  fondly  anticipated  Messiah,  nor 
consent  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  the  terms  which  he 
prescribed.  In  them,  therefore,  were  fulfilled  the  ancient 
prophecies,  which  spoke  of  their  rejection  of  Christ,  and  conse- 
quent excision  from  the  people  of  God. 

Doctrines. 

1.  Exclusion  from  the  pale  of  any  visible  church  does  not  of 
itself  imply  that  men  are  without  the  reach  of  divine  niercy, 
vs.  25,  26. 

2.  As  the  world  has  hitherto  existed,  only  a  small  portion  of 
the  nominal  members  of  the  church,  or  of  the  professors  of  the 
true  religion,  has  been  the  real  people  of  God,  vs.  27,  28,  29. 

*  3.  Erj-or  is  often  a  greater  obstacle  to  the  salvation  of  men. 
than  carelessness,  or  vice.  Christ  said  that  publicans  and  har- 
lots would  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  before  the  Pharisees.  In 
like  manner  the  thoughtless  and  sensual  Gentiles  were  more 
susceptible  of  impression  from  the  gospel,  and  were  more  fre- 
quently converted  to  Christ,  than  the  Jews,  w^ho  were  wedded 
to  erroneous  views  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  vs.  30,  31. 

4.  Agreeably  to  the  declarations  of  the  previous  portion  of 
this  chapter,  and  the  uniform  tenor  of  scripture,  the  ground  of 


ROMANS  9:  25—33.  421 

the  distinction  between  the  saved  and  the  lost,  is  to  be  found 
not  in  men,  but  in  God.  He  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy.  But  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  men  is  always 
in  themselves.  That  God  gave  his  saving  grace  to  more  Gen- 
tiles than  Jews,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  must  be  referred 
to  his  sovereign  pleasure;  but  that  the  Jews  were  cut  off  and 
perished,  is  to  be  referred  to  their  own  unbelief.  In  like  man- 
ner, every  sinner  must  look  into  his  own  heart  and  conduct 
for  the  ground  of  his  condemnation,  and  never  to  any  secret 
purpose  of  God,  v.  32. 

5.  Christ  crucified  has  ever  been  either  foolishness  or  an 
offence  to  unrenewed  men.  Hence,  right  views  of  the  Saviour's 
character  and  cordial  approbation  of  the  plan  of  salvation  through 
him,  are  characteristic  of  those  "who  are  called;"  i.  e.  they 
are  evidences  of  a  renewed  heart,  v.  33. 

RtTnarks. 
1.  The  consideration  that  God  has  extended  to  us,  who  were 
not  his  people,  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  his  children, 
should  be  a  constant  subject  of  gratitude,  vs.  25,  26. 
^.  If  only  a  remnant  of  the  Jewish  church,  God's  own  people, 
were  saved,  how  careful  and  solicitous  should  all  professors 
of  religion  be,  that  their  faith  and  hope  be  well  founded, 
vs.  27 — 29. 

3.  Let  no  man  think  error  in  doctrine  a  slight  practical 
evil.  No  road  to  perdition  has  ever  been  more  thronged  than 
that  of  false  doctrine.  Error  is  a  shield  over  the  conscience, 
and  a  bandage  over  the  eyes,  vs.  30,  31. 

4.  No  form  of  error  is  more  destructive  than  that  which  leads 
to  self-dependence;  either  reliance  on  bur  own  powers,  or  on 
our  own  merit,  v.  32. 

5.  To  criminate  God,  and  excuse  ourselves,  is  always  an 
evidence  of  ignorance  and  depravity,  v.  32. 

6.  Christ  declared  those  blessed  who  were  not  offended  at 
him.  If  our  hearts  are  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  Jesus  Christ 
is  to  us  at  once  the  object  of  supreme  affection,  and  the  sole 
ground  of  confidence,  v.  33.  . 

7.  The  gospel  produced  at  first  the  same  effects  as  those  we 
now  witness.     It  had  the  same  obstacles  to  surmount;  and  it 


422  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

was  received  or  rejected  by  the  same  classes  of  men  then  as 
now.  Its  history,  therefore,  is  replete  with  practical  instruc- 
tion. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Contents. 
The  object  of  this  chapter,  as  of  the  preceding  and  of  the 
one  which  follows,  is  to  set  forth  the  truth  in  reference  to  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  as  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  and  the 
extension  to  all  nations  of  the  offers  of  salvation.  The  first 
verses  are  again,  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  ch.  9,  introductory 
and  conciliatory,  setting  forth  the  ground  of  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews,  vs.  1 — 4.  The  next  section  contains  an  exhibition  of  the 
terms  of  salvation,  designed  to  show  that  they  were  as  accessi- 
ble to  the  Gentiles  as  the  Jews,  vs.  5 — 10.  The  plan  of  salva- 
tion being  adapted  to  all,  and  God  being  the  God  of  all,  the 
gospel  should  be  preached  to  all,  vs.  11 — 17.  The  truth  here 
taught  (the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  &c.)  was  predicted  clearly 
in  the  Old  Testament,  vs.  IS — 21. 


CHAP.  10:  1—10. 

t^nalysis. 
With  his  usual  tenderness  the  apostle  assures  his  brethren 
of  his  solicitude  for  their  welfare,  and  of  his  proper  appreciation 
of  their  character,  vs.  1,  2.  The  difficulty  was,  that  they  would 
not  submit  to  the  plan  of  salvation  projiosed  in  the  gospel,  and, 
therefore,  they  rejected  the  Saviour.  This  was  the  true  ground 
of  their  excision  from  the  people  of  God,  vs.  3 — 4.  The  method 
of  justification,  on  Avhich  the  Jews  insisted,  was  legal,  and  from 
its  nature  must  be  confined  to  themselves,  or  to  those  who 
would  consent  to  become  Jews.  Its  terms,  when  properly 
understood,  were  perfectly  impracticable,  v.  5.  But  the  gospel 
method  of  salvation  prescribes  no  such  severe  terms,  it  simply 
requires  cordial  faith  and  open  profession,  vs.  6 — 10.     This,  he 


ROMANS  10:  1—10.  423 

shows,  in  the  next  verses,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  and 
I    from  it  he  infers  the  applicability  of  this  plan  to  all  men,  Gen- 
tiles as  well  as  Jews. 

Commentary. 

( 1 )  Brethren,  my  hearts  desire,  and  prayer  to  God  for 
Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved*  As  the  truth  which 
Paul  was  to  reiterate  in  the  ears  of  the  Jew  was,  of  all  otliers, 
to  them  the  most  offensive,  he  endeavours  to  allay  their  enmity, 
first,  by  assuring  them  of  his  affection,  and  secondly,  by  avoid- 
ing all  exaggeration  in  the  statement  of  their  case.  He  had 
no  pleasure  in  contemplating  the  evils  which  impended  over 
them,  his  earnest  desire  and  prayer  was  {slg  duriq^iav)  that  they 
might  be  saved;  literally  to  salvation,  as  expressing  the  end 
or  object  towards  which  his  wishes  and  prayers  tend;  seech. 
6:  22.  Gal.  3:  17,  and  frequent  examples  elsewhere  of  this  use 
of  the  preposition  sJg. 

(2)  For  I  bear  them  record  that  they  have  a  zeal  of  God.  So 
far  from  desiring  to  exaggerate  the  evil  of  their  conduct,  the 
apostle,  as  was  his  uniform  manner,  endeavoured  to  bring  every 
thing  commendable  and  exculpatory  fully  into  view.  The  word 
for  has  here  its  appropriate  force,  as  it  introduces  the  ground 
or  reason  of  the  preceding  declaration.  '  I  desire  their  salva- 
tion, for  they  themselves  are  far  from  being  unconcerned  as  to 
divine  things.'  Zeal  of  God  may  mean  very  great  zeal,  as 
cedars  of  God  mean  great  cedars,  according  to  a  common  He- 
brew idiom;  or  zeal  of  lohich  God  is  the  object;  the  latter 
explanation  is  to  be  preferred.  John  2:  17,  "  The  zeal  of  thy 
house  hath  eaten  me  up."  Acts  21 :  22,  "  Zealous  of  the  law." 
Acts  22:  3,  "  Zealous  of  God."  Gal.  1 :  14,  &c.  &c.  The  Jews 
had  great  zeal  about  God,  but  it  was  wrong  as  to  its  object,  and 
of  consequence  wrong  in  its  moral  qualities.  Zeal  when  rightly 
directed,  however  ardent,  is  humble  and  amiable.  When  its 
object  is  evil,  it  is  proud,  censorious  and  cruel.  Hence,  the 
importance  of  its  being  properly  guided,  not  merely  to  prevent 
the  waste  of  feeling  and  effort,  but  principally  to  prevent  its 

*  Hiac  vidcmus,  quanta  sollioitudme  saiictus  vir  olTensionibus  obviarit.  Adhuc 
enim,  ut  temperct  quicquid  erat  accerbitatis  in  exponenda  .ludaeonini  rcjectionc, 
suam,  ut  prius,  erga  eos  benevolentiam  testatur,  et  eani  ab  cflcctu  couiprobat,  quod 
sibi  eorum  salus  curae  esset  coram  Domino. — Calvin. 


424  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

evil  effects  on  ourselves  and  others.  But  not  according  to 
knowledge.'*  Neither  enlightened  nor  wise;  neither  right  as  to 
its  objects,  nor  correct  in  its  character.  The  former  idea  is 
here  principally  intended.  The  Jews  were  zealous  about  their 
law,  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  and  the  establishment  of  their 
own  merit.  How  natmally  would  a  zeal  for  such  objects  make 
men  place  religion  in  the  observance  of  external  rites;  and  be 
connected  with  pride,  censoriousness,  and  a  persecuting  spirit. 
In  so  far,  however,  as  this  zeal  was  a  zeal  about  God,  it  was 
preferable  to  indifference,  and  is,  therefore,  mentioned  by  the 
apostle  with  qualified  commendation. 

(3)  For  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and 
going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have 
not.  Sic.  The  grand  mistake  of  the  Jews  was  about  the  method 
of  justification.  Ignorance  on  this  point  implied  ignorance  of 
the  character  of  God,  of  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  of 
themselves.  It  was,  therefore,  and  is,  and  must  continue  ever 
to  be  a  vital  point.  Those  who  err  essentially  here,  err  fatally; 
and  those  who  are  right  here,  cannot  be  wrong  as  to  other  ne- 
cessary truths.  The  phrase  righteousness  of  God  admits  here, 
as  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  of  various  interpretations.  1.  It 
may  mean  the  divine  holiness  or  general  moral  perfection  of 
God.  In  this  way  the  passage  would  mean,  '  Being  ignorant 
of  the  perfection  or  holiness  of  God,  and,  of  course,  of  the  ex- 
tent of  his  demands,  and  goino;  about  to  establish  their  own 
excellence,  &c.'  This  gives  a  good  sense,  but  it  is  not  consist- 
ent with  the  use  of  the  expression  righteousness  of  God  m 
other  similar  passages,  as  ch.  1 :  17.  3:21,  &c.  And,  secondly,  it 
requires  the  phrase  to  be  taken  in  two  different  senses  in  the 
same  verse;  for  the  last  clause,  '  Have  not  submitted  themselves 
to  the  righteousness  of  God,'  cannot  mean,  '  They  have  not 
submitted  to  the  divine  holiness.'  2.  The  term  may  mean  that 
righteousness  of  which  God  is  the  author,  that  which  he 
approves  and  accepts.  This  interpretation  is,  in  this  case,  pecu- 
liarly appropriate,  from  the  opposition  of  the  two  expressions, 

*  Judaci  habucrc  ot  habont  zelnni  sine  scicntia,  nos  contra,  proh  dolor,  scicntiam 
sine  zpIo. — Flacius,  quoted  by  Bkngel.  Melius  est  vel  claudicare  in  via,  quani 
extra  viam  strenue  currorc,  ut  ait  Augustinus.  Si  religiosi  esse  voluinus,  incmi- 
nerimus  verum  esse,  quod  Lactantius  docet,  cam  dcnium  vcram  esse  religioncm 
•]uae  conjuncta  est  cuui  Dei  vcrbo. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  10:  1—10.  425 

righteousness  of  God  and  their  own  righteousness.  '  Being 
ignorant  of  that  righteousness  which  God  has  provided  and 
which  he  bestows,  and  endeavouring  to  establish  their  own, 
they  refused  to  accept  of  his.'  The  sense  here  is  perfectly 
good,  and  the  interpretation  may  be  carried  through  the  verse, 
being  applicable  to  the  last  clause  as  well  as  to  the  others.  A 
comparison  of  this  passage  with  Phil.  3:  9,  "  Not  having  my 
own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,"  is 
also  in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  For  there  the  phrase  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  God  can  only  mean  that  which  he 
gives,  and  with  this  phrase  the  expression  the  righteousness 
of  God,  in  this  verse,  seems  to  be  synonymous.*  3.  Thirdly, 
we  may  understand  the  word  rendered  righteousness  in  the 
sense  of  justif  cation,  "justification  of  God"  being  taken  as 
equivalent  to  '  God\s  method  of  just  if  cation.'  '  Being  ig- 
norant of  God's  method  of  justification,  and  going  about  to 
establish  their  own,  they  have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the 
method  which  he  has  proposed.'  Between  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding interpretation  there  seems  little  ground  of  preference. 
The  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  their  rejection  of 
the  method  of  salvation  through  a  crucified  Redeemer,  and 
their  persisting  in  confiding  in  their  own  merits  and  advan- 
tages as  the  ground  of  their  acceptance  with  God. 

(4)  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  laiv  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth.  The  precise  connexion  of  this  verse 
with  the  preceding  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  its  meaning. 
The  general  import  of  the  passage  is  suificiently  obvious,  but 
its  exact  sense  is  not  so  easy  to  determine,  on  account  of  the 
ambiguity  of  the  word  (ts'Xo?)  translated  end.  The  word  may 
signify,  1.  The  object  to  which  any  thing  leads.  Christ  is,  in 
this  sense,  the  end  of  the  law,  inasmuch  as  the  law  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  him,  Gal.  3:  24;  and  as  all  its  types  and 

*  The  expression  t/jV  ax  &£ou  ^ixaiotfjvyjv,  seems  to  be  Paul's  own  explana- 
tion of  the  more  ambiguous  phrase  ti^v  5soG   ^jxaiotf^vviv   of  the  present  passage. 

Observa  antithesin  Dei  justitiae  et  hoininum.  Primo  \idemus  opponi  inter  se 
quasi  res  contrarias,  et  quae  simul  stare  nequeunt :  unde  scquitur,  everti  Dei  jus- 
titiam  simulac  propriam  statuunt  homines.  Deinde  ut  inter  se  respondeant  anti- 
theta  non  dubium  est  vocari  Dei  justitiam  quae  ejus  donum  est :  siculi  rursum 
dicitur  hominum  justitia,  quam  petunt  a  seipsis,  vol  se  ad  Deuni  aflferrc  conlidunt. 
Justitiae  ergo  Dei  non  subjicitur  qui  vult  in  seipso  justificari :  quia  justitiae  Dei 
obtinendae  principium  est  abdicaie  se  propria  justitia. — Calvim. 

54 


426  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

prophecies  pointed  to  him,  "  They  were  a  shadow  of  things  to 
come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ,''  Col.  2:  17.  Heb.  9:  9.  The 
meaning  and  connexion  of  the  passage  would  then  be,  '  The 
Jews  erred  in  seeking  justification  from  the  law,  for  the  law 
was  designed,  not  to  afford  justification,  but  to  lead  them  to 
Christ,  in  order  that  they  might  be  justified.'  To  Christ  all 
its  portions  tended,  he  was  the  object  of  its  types  and  the  sub- 
ject of  its  predictions,  and  its  precepts  and  penalty  urge  the 
soul  to  him  as  the  only  refuge.  So  Calvin,  Bengel,  and  the 
majority  of  commentators.* 

2.  The  word  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  completion  or 
fulfilment.  Then  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  because  he 
fulfils  all  its  requisitions,  all  its  types  and  ceremonies,  and  satis- 
fies its  preceptive  and  penal  demands.  See  Matt.  5:  17,  "  Think 
not  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets,  I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil;"  and  Rom.  8:  4.  The  philo- 
logical ground  for  this  interpretation  is  slight,  1  Tim.  1:  5 
is  compared  with  Rom.  13:  10,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  word 
(t^Xos)  here  translated  end,  is  equivalent  to  the  word  (s'kri^uiJ.a) 
which  is  there  (Rom.  13:  10)  rendered  fulfilling.  The  sense, 
according  to  this  interpretation,  is  scriptural. 

3.  We  may  take  the  word  in  its  more  ordinary  sense  of 
end  or  termination,  and  understand  it  metonymically  for  he 
who  terminates  or  puts  an  end  to.  The  meaning  and  con- 
nexion would  then  be,  '  The  Jews  mistake  the  true  method  of 
justification,  because  they  seek  it  from  the  law,  whereas  Christ 
has  abolished  the  law,  in  order  that  all  who  believe  may  be 
justified.'  Compare  Eph.  2:  15,  "Having  abolished  in  his 
flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments;"  Col.  2:  4, 
"  Blotting  out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances  that  was  against 
us,  &c.;"  Gal.  3:  10,  12.  Rom.  G:  14.  7:  4,  6,  and  the  general 
drift  of  the  former  part  of  the  epistle.  In  sense  this  interpre- 
tation amounts  the  same  with  the  preceding,  though  it  differs 
from  it  in  form.     Christ  has  abolished  the  law  not  by  de- 

*  Indicat  legis  praepostcrum  Intcrpretem  esse,  qui  per  ejus  opera  justificari 
quaerit,  quoniam  in  hoc  lex  data  est,  quo  nos  ad  aliam  justitiam  manu  duceret. 
Imo  quicquid  doceat  lex,  quicquid  praecipiat,  quicquid  promittat  semper  Christum 
habet  pro  scopo;  ergo  in  ipsum  dirigendae  simt  omnes  partes. — Calvin. 

Lex  hominem  urgct,  donee  is  ad  Christum  confugit.  Turn  ipsadicit:  usijlum  es 
nacti/s,  tlesino  te  per.nequij  snpia,  snhms  e.v. — Benbel. 


ROMANS  10:  1— lo.  427 

stroying,  but  by  fulfilling  it.  He  has  abolished  the  law  as 
a  rule  of  justification,  or  covenant  of  works,  and  the  whole 
Mosaic  economy  having  met  its  completion  in  him,  has  by 
him  been  brought  to  an  end.  Either  this  or  the  first  inter- 
pretation is  probably  the  correct  one.  In  favour  of  the  former 
is  the  ordinary  import  of  the  word  here  used  by  the  apostle; 
and  in  favour  of  the  latter  is  the  drift  of  the  early  part  of  the 
epistle,  which  was  to  show  that  through  Christ  we  are  delivered 
from  the  law  and  introduced  into  a  state  of  grace.  It  matters 
little  which  view  is  preferred.*  The  word  law  is  obviously 
here  used  in  its  prevalent  sense  throughout  this  epistle,  for  the 
whole  rule  of  duty  prescribed  to  man,  including  for  the  Jews 
the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  institutions.  The  laiv  is  intended  in 
every  sense  in  which  law  has  been  fulfilled,  satisfied  or  abro- 
gated by  Jesus  Christ.  For  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
believethA  The  general  meaning  of  this  clause,  in  this  con- 
nexion, is, '  So  that  every  believer  may  be  justified.'  The  way 
in  which  this  idea  is  arrived  at,  however,  may  be  variously 
explained.  1.  The  preposition  (dg)  rendered /o/*,  may  be  ren- 
dered as  to,  as  it  relates  to.  *  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  as 
it  relates  to  righteousness  or  justification.'  2.  It  may  be  under- 
stood of  the  effect  or  result,  and  be  resolved  into  the  verbal 
construction  with  that  or  so  that;  '  Christ  is  the  end,  &c.,  so 
that  righteousness  is  to  every  believer;  or  so  that  every  be- 
liever is  justified.'  3.  It  may  point  out  the  end  or  object. 
*  Christ  fulfils  the  law  in  order  that  every  one  that  believes,  &c.' 
The  Jews,  then,  did  not  submit  to  the  method  of  justification 
proposed  by  God,  or  to  the  righteousness  which  he  had  pro- 
vided, for  they  did  not  submit  to  Christ,  who  is  the  end  of  the 
law.  He  is  that  to  which  the  law  leads,  or  he  has  abolished  the 
law,  so  that  every  one  that  believes  may  be  justified. 

(5)  For  Moses    describeth  the   righteousness    which  is  of 
the  law.     That  is,  concerning  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
the  law,  Moses  thus  writes.     In  the  last  clause  of   the    pre- 
ceding verse  it  was  clearly  intimated  that  faith  was  the  condition 
of  salvation  under  the  gospel.     'To  every  one,  without  dis- 

•  The  third  interpretation  is,  perhaps,  the  most  generally  adopted  l)y  modern 
commentators;  see  Wahl's  Clavis  on  the  word  ts'Xos, and  also  Kopph  and  Flatt. 

t  El's  ^ixaiotfuvrjv  ffavW  t^  ffiO'rSi/ovri.  See  Wahl's  Clavis  on  the  preposi- 
tion elf. 


428  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

tinction,  that  believeth  is  justification  secured.'  On  this  the 
apostle  connects  his  description  and  contrast  of  the  two  methods 
of  justification,  the  one  by  works  and  the  other  by  faith,  with 
the  design  to  show  that  the  former  was  in  its  nature  impracti- 
cable, while  the  other  was  reasonal)le  and  easy,  and  adapted  to 
all  classes  of  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  should  therefore  be 
offered  to  all. 

The  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law.    The  word  rendered 
righteousness  may  here  again  be  variously  explained.     1.  The 
method  of  justification,  or  of  becoming  righteous.     This  suits 
the  context;  '  Moses  describes  the  legal  method  of  justification 
thus.'    But  this  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  clause  "  which 
is  of  the  law."     2.  It  may  mean  that  excellence  which  arises 
from  obedience  to  the  law,  and  which  is  opposed  to  that  which 
is  obtained  by  faith.     The  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law  is, 
then,  that  which  consists  in  legal  obedience.     3.  It  may  have 
its  appropriate  and  familiar  sense,  the  state  of  one  who  is  free  as 
to  the  demands  of  justice  or  law.     In  the  former  sense  it  means 
that  which  actually  answers  those  demands,  in  the  latter  it  ex- 
presses the  condition  of  one  who  is  just,  as  in  Is.  5:  23,  "Who 
take  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  from  him."     In  this  view 
the  phrase  "  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,"  or  rather  the 
words  thus  translated,  mean  the  justification  or  state  of  jus- 
tification ivhich  a?ises  from  t/ie  law.     This,  then,  would  be 
opposed  to  that  which  arises  from  faith.     It  is  evident  that 
this  word  was  of  such  large  import,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  that 
sometimes   one  and  sometimes    another  of  its  phases  was  in 
his  mind,  and  that  these  are  changed  repeatedly  in  the  same 
passage.     Thus,  in  the  passage  before  us,  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand the  7'ii(hteoits)7ess  which  is  of  the  law,  and  7'ighteoiis- 
ness  w/iich  is  by  faith,  as  meaning  the  justifying  excellence  or 
merit  which  is  obtained  in  the  one  instance  from  the  law,  and 
in  the  other  by  faith.     But  this  does  not  so  well  answer  in 
the  immediately  succeeding  verse,  "  The  righteousness  which 
is  by  faith,  speaketh  in  this  wise;"  where  the  meaning  would 
seem  to  be,  the  method  of  justification  by  faith  says  or  de- 
mands simply  cordial  belief  and  open  profession.     The  passage 
quoted  by  the  apostle  is  Levit.  18:  5,  "The  man  that  doeth 
those  things  shall  live  by  them."     The  language  of  Moses  is 
an  accurate  description  of  the  legal  method  of  justification. 


ROMANS  10:  1—10.  429 

The  man  who  did  all  that  was  requh'cd  by  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions would,  on  the  ground  of  his  obedience,  be  rewarded  with 
all  the  blessings  which  that  economy  promised.  And  the  man 
who  should  do  all  that  the  law  of  God,  by  which  he  is  to  be 
ultimately  tried,  demands,  would  live  on  the  ground  of  that 
obedience.  It  is  plain  that  the  word  live  is  used,  in  its  familiar 
biblical  sense,  to  denote  a  happy  existence.  '  He  sliall  be 
happy,  and  happy  in  God.  He  shall  have  that  life  which  con- 
sists in  intercourse  with  him  who  is  our  life.'* 

(6,  7)  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaketh  on 
this  loise,  say  not,  &c.  On  the  import  of  the  phrase,  "  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  f;iith,"t  see  the  preceding  verse.  It 
is  clearly  implied  in  that  verse  that  the  attainment  of  justifi- 
cation, by  a  method  which  prescribed  perfect  obedience,  is 
for  sinful  men  impossible.  It  is  the  object  of  this  and  the  suc- 
ceeding verses,  to  declare  that  the  gospel  requires  no  such 
impossibilities;  it  neither  I'equires  us  to  scale  the  heavens,  nor 
to  fathom  the  great  abyss;  it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and 
open  profession.  In  expressing  these  ideas  the  apostle  skilfully 
avails  himself  of  the  language  of  Moses,  Deut.  30:  10 — 14.  It 
is  clear  that  the  expressions  used  by  the  ancient  lawgiver  were 
a  familiar  mode  of  saying  that  a  thing  could  not  be  done.  The 
passage  referred  to  is  the  following,  "  For  this  command  which 
I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  neither  is 
it  far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldest  say,  who  shall 
go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it, 
and  do  it  ?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou  shouldest 
say,  who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that 
we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very  nigh  unto 
thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it." 
The  obvious  import  of  this  passage  is,  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
will  of  God  had  been  made  perfectly  accessible,  no  one  was 


*  Xri(Szrai  ex  mente  Judacorum  intcrpretatur  de  \-ita  actema,  ut  Tm\q-iim 
Levit.  \8:  4,  etversio  Si/ra  Matt.  19:  16.  Sanhedrim,  f.  59.  ^hoda  Sora,i. 
31.  J^Edrash  Thehillim.  Bemidbar,  R.  XIII.  R.  Meir:  dixit,  Qui  fecerit  ea 
homo :  non  dicitur,  Sacerdos,  Levita,  Israelita,  sed  homo  ;  ut  discas,  etiam  genti- 
lem,  si  proselytus  fiat,  ct  legi  det  operam,  intclligi.  Tanchnma,  p.  124.  Bava 
Kama,  f.  38,  1. 

f  q^iae  ex  fide  est  justitia.  Metonymia  suavissima,  i.  e.  homo  justitiara  ex 
fide  quaerens. — Besgel. 


430  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

required  to  do  what  was  impossible;  neither  to  ascend  to  heaven, 
nor  to  pass  the  bonndless  sea,  in  order  to  attain  it;  it  was 
neither  hidden,  nor  afar  off,  but  obvious  and  at  hand.  Without 
directly  citing  this  passage,  Paul  uses  nearly  the  same  language 
to  express  the  same  idea.  The  expressions  here  used  seem  to 
have  become  proverbial  among  the  Jews.  To  be  "  high,"  or 
"  afar  off,"  was  to  be  unattainable;  Ps.  139:  6.  Prov.  24:  7,  "To 
ascend  to  heaven,"  or  "  to  go  down  to  hell,"  was  to  do  what 
was  impossible,  Amos  9 :  2.  Ps.  139:  8,  9.  As  the  sea  was  to  the 
ancients  impassable,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  question 
*  who  can  pass  over  the  sea  ?'  was  tantamount  with,  'Who  can 
ascend  up  into  heaven  ?'  Among  the  later  Jews  the  same  mode 
of  expressions  not  unfrequently  occur.* 

Instead  of  using  the  expression,  '  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea 
for  us  ?'  Paul  uses  the  equivalent  phrase,  '  Who  shall  descend 
into  thee  deep  ?'  as  more  pertinent  to  his  object.  The  word 
(a/Sutfffov)  rendered  deep,  is  the  same  which  elsewhere  is  rendered 
abyss,  and  properly  means  loithout  bottom,  bottomless,  and, 
therefore,  is  often  applied  to  the  sea  as  fathomless.  Gen.  1 :  2. 
7:  11  (in  the  Septuagint),  and  also  to  the  great  cavern  beneath 
the  earth,  which,  in  the  figurative  language  of  the  scriptures,  is 
spoken  of  as  the  abode  of  the  dead,  and  wiiich  is  often  opposed 
to  heaven.  Job  28:24,  "The  abyss  says  it  is  not  in  me;" 
compare  the  enumeration  of  things  in  heaven,  things  in  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth,  in  Phil.  2:  10,  and  elsewhere;  see 
also  Gen.  49:  25,  God  "shall  bless  thee  with  the  blessings  of 
heaven  above,  blessings  of  the  abyss  which  lieth  under."  In 
the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  this  passage,  it  is 
always  used  for  the  abode  of  fallen  spirits  and  lost  souls,  Luke 
8:31.  Rev.  17:  8.  20:  1,  and  frequently  in  that  book,  where  it 
is  appropriately  rendered  the  bottomless  pit.  The  expression 
is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  that  which  is  commonly  rendered 
hell  in  our  version.  Ps.  139:  8,  "If  I  make  my  bed  in  hell." 
Amos  10:  2,  "Though  they  dig  into  hell,"  &c.,  and  was  no 
doubt  chosen  by  the  apostle,  as  more  suitable  to  the  reference 
to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  with  which  he  meant  to  connect 


*  JBava  Mezid,  f.  94,  1.  Si  quis  dixcrit  mulieri,  si  adsccndcris  in  firmaniciituni, 
aut  dcscendcris  in  abys.ssuni,  oris  niihi  desponsata,  hacc  conditio  frustranca  est. — 
Wetstein. 


ROMANS  10:  1—10.  431 

it,  than  the  expression  used  by  Moses  in  the  same  general 
sense,  "  Who  shall  pass  over  the  sea." 

Paul  connects  each  of  the  questions,  virtually  borrowed  from 
the  Old  Testament,  with  a  comment  designed  to  apply  them 
more  directly  to  the  point  which  he  had  in  view.     Say  not  who 
shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  doivn,&LC. 
The  precise  intent  of  these  comments,  however,  may  be  differ- 
ently understood.     1.  The  words  that  is  may  be  taken  as  equi- 
valent to  namely  or  to  luit,  and  the  apostle's  comment  be 
connected,  as  an  explanatory  substitute,  with  the  questions, '  Say 
not  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  to  wit,  to  bring  Christ  down; 
or  who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ?  to  bring  him  up  again 
from  the-  dead.     The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  plan  of  salva- 
tion by  faith  does  not  require  us  to  do  what  cannot  be  done, 
and  which  is  now  unnecessary;  it  does  not  require  us  to  provide 
a  Saviour,  to  bring  him  from  heaven,  or  to  raise  him  from  the 
dead;  a  Saviour  has  been  provided,  and  we  are  now  only  re- 
quired to  believe,  &c.'     2.  The  words  that  is  may  be  taken  as 
equivalent  to  the  fuller  expression,  that  is  to  say,  '  To  ask  who 
shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?'  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  who  shall  bring 
Christ  down  from  above  ?     And  to  ask,  '  Who  shall  descend 
into  the  deep  ?  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  who   shall   bring  Christ 
again  from  the  dead  ?'     The  comments  of  the  apostle,  may, 
therefore,  be  regarded  as  a  reproof  of  the  want  of  faith  implied 
in  such  questions,  and  the  passage  may  be  thus  understood, 
'  The  plan  of  salvation  by  faith   requires  no  impossibilities,  it 
requires  no  one  to   ascend  into  heaven,  as  though  Christ  had 
not  come  down  already;  or  to  descend  into  the  deep,  as  though 
Christ  had  not  risen  from  the  dead;  but  it  requires  simply  faith, 
&c.'     The  whole  passage  is  evidently  rhetorical  and  ornate. 
The  simple  and  obvious  meaning  is,  as  stated  above,  to  declare 
that  the  gospel  method  of  salvation  demanded  nothing  but  f;iith 
and  confession. 

Instead  of  regarding  the  apostle  as  intending  to  state  generally 
the  nature  of  the  method  of  justification  by  faith,  many  sup- 
pose that  it  is  his  object  to  encourage  and  support  a  desponding 
and  anxious  inquirer.  '  Do  not  despairingly  inquire  who  shall 
point  out  the  way  of  life  ?  No  one,  either  from  heaven  or  from 
the  deep,  will  come  to  teach  me  the  way.  Speak  not  thus,  for 
Christ  is  come  from  heaven,  and  arisen  from  the  dead  for  your 


432  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

salvation,  and  no  other  Saviour  is  required.'*     But  this  view 
does  not  seem  to  harmonize  with  the  spirit  of  the  context. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  Paul  meant,  in  this  passage, 
merely  to  allude  to  the  language  of  JNloses  in  Deut.  30:  10 — 14, 
or  whether  he  is  to  be  understood  as  quoting  it  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  imply  that  the  ancient  prophet  was  describing  the 
method  of  justification  by  faith.     This  latter  view  is  taken  by 
Calvin,  De  Brais,  and  many  others.     They  suppose  that  in  the 
passage  quoted  in  the  5th  verse  from  Lev.  18:5,  Moses  de- 
scribes the  legal  method  of  justification,  but  that  here  he  has 
reference  to  salvation  by  faith.     This   is,  no  doubt,  possible. 
For  in  Deut.  30:  10,  &c.,  the  context  shows  that  the  passage 
may  be  understood  of  the  whole  system  of  instruction  given  by 
Moses;  a  system  which  included  in  it,  under  its  various  types 
and  prophecies,  an  exhibition  of  the  true  method  of  salvation. 
Moses,  therefore,  might  say  with  regard  to  his  own  law,  that  it 
set  before  the  people  the  way  of  eternal  life,  that  they  had  now 
no   need  to   inquire  who  should   procure  this  knowledge  for 
them  from  a  distance,  for  it  was  near  them,  even  in  their  hearts 
and  in  their  mouths.t     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  clear 
that  this  interpretation  is  by  no  means  necessary.     Paul  does 
not  say,  '  Moses  describes  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith 
in  this  wise,'  as  immediately  above  he  had  said  of  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  the  law.     There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
the  apostle  to  require  us  to  understand  him  as  quoting  Moses  in 
pi'oof  of  his  own  doctrine.     It  is,  indeed,  more  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  to  consider  him  as  merely  ex- 
pressing his  own  ideas  in  scriptural  language,  as  in  v.  19  of  this 
chapter,  and  frequently  elsewhere.    '  Moses  teache^  us  that  the 
legal  method  of  justification  requires  perfect  obedience:  but  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith  requires  no  such  impossibility, 
it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and  open  profession.' 

(8)  Bui  what  sailh  it?    The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart,  that  is,  the  loord  of  faith 

*  See  KxAPp's  Diatribe  in  Locum  Rom.  10:  4 — 11,  &c.,  p.  543  of  his  Scripta 
Varii  Argttmenti, 

■j-  Si  dc  sola  lege  serino  esset,  frivoluin  fiii.ssct  !irp;umentum :  quum  nihilo  sit 
factu  facilior  lex  Dei  ante  oculos  posita,  (piain  si  procul  abcsset.  Ergo  non  legem 
solam  designat,  scd  totam  in  genere  doctruiam,  cpiae  evangelium  sub  se  comprc- 
hcndit. — Calvix. 


ROMANS  10:  1—10.  433 

which  ice  preach.  As  the  expressions  to  be  hidden^  to  be  far 
off,  imply  that  the  thing  to  which  they  refer  is  inaccessible  or 
difficult,  so  to  be  near,  to  be  in  the  mouth  and  in  the  hearty 
mean  to  be  accessible,  easy  and  familiar.  They  are  frequently 
thus  used;  see  Jos.  1:8,"  This  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy 
mouth,"  i.  e.  it  shall  be  constantly  familiar  to  thee;  Ex.  13:9, 
**  That  the  law  may  be  in  thy  mouth;"  Ps.  37:  31.  40:  8.  The 
meaning  of  this  passage  then  is,  '  The  gospel,  instead  of  di- 
recting us  to  ascend  into  heaven  or  to  go  down  to  the  abyss, 
tells  us  the  thing  required  is  simple  and  easy.  Believe  with 
thy  heart  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  i.  e. 
the  doctrine  or  truth  contemplated,  and  by  implication,  what 
that  doctrine  demands.  Paul,  therefore,  represents  the  gospel 
as  speaking  of  itself.  The  method  of  justification  by  faith 
says,  '  The  word  is  near  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  i.  e.  the  word  or 
doctrine  of  faith  is  thus  easy  and  familiar.'  This  is  Paul's  own 
explanation.  The  expression  word  of  faith  may  mean  the 
luord  or  doctrine  concerning  faith,  or  the  word  to  which 
faith  is  due,  which  should  be  believed.  In  either  case  it  is  the 
gospel  or  doctrine  of  justification  which  is  here  intended. 

(9)    That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  month  the  Lord 
Jesus,  &c.     The  connexion  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding 
may  be  explained  by  making  the  last  clause  of  v.  8  a  paren- 
thesis, and  connecting  this  immediately  with  the  first  clause. 
'It  says,  the  word  is  nigh  thee;  it  says,  that  if  thou  shalt  con- 
fess  and    believe,  thou  shalt  be   saved.'     According  to   this 
view,  this  verse  is  still  a  part  of  what  the  gospel  is  represented 
as  saying.     Perhaps,  however,  it  is  better  to  consider  this  verse 
as  Paul's  own  language,  and  an  explanation  of  the  "  word  of 
faith"  just  spoken  of.     '  The  thing  is  near  and  easy,  to  wit,  the 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach,  that  if  thou  shalt  confess,  &c.' 
The  two  requisites  for  salvation  mentioned  in  this  verse  are 
confession  and  faith.      They  are  mentioned  in  their  natural 
order;  as  confession  is  the  fruit  and  external  evidence  of  faith. 
So  in  2  Peter  1:13,  calling  is  placed  before  election,  because 
the  former  is  the  evidence  of  the  latter.     The  thing  to  be  con- 
fessed is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord.     That  is,  we  must  openly 
recognise  his  authority  to  the  full  extent  in  which  he  is  Lord; 
acknowledge   that   he   is   exalted    above   all    principality  and 
powers,  that  angels  are  made  subject  to  him,  that  all  power  in 

55 


434  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

heaven  and  earth  is  committed  unto  him;  and  of  course  that  he 
is  our  Lord.  This  confession,  therefore,  inckides  in  it  an  ac- 
knowledgement of  Christ's  universal  sovereignty,  and  a  sincere 
recognition  of  his  authority  over  us.  To  confess  Christ  as 
Lord,  is  to  acknowledge  him  as  the  Messiah,  recognised  as  such 
of  God,  and  invested  with  all  the  power  and  prerogatives  of 
the  Mediatorial  throne.  This  acknowledgement  is  consequently 
often  put  for  a  recognition  of  Christ  in  all  his  offices.  1  Cor. 
12:  3,  "  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  hut  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Phil.  2:11,  "Every  tongue  shall  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord."  '  To  preach  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or  '  that  Jesus 
is  the  Lord,'  Acts  11:  20,  is  to  preach  him  as  the  Saviour  in 
all  his  fulness.  Rom.  14:  9,  "  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died, 
and  rose,  and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead 
and  of  the  living."  The  necessity  of  a  public  confession  of 
Christ  unto  salvation  is  frequently  asserted  in  the  scriptures. 
Matt.  10:  32,  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven."  Luke  12:  8.  1  John  4:15,  "Whosoever  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he  in 
God." 

The  second  requisite  is  faith.  The  truth  to  be  believed  is 
that  God  hath  raised  Christ  from  the  dead.  That  is,  we  must 
believe  that  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  God  has  publicly  ac- 
knowledged him  to  be  all  that  he  claimed  to  be,  and  has  publicly 
accepted  of  all  that  he  came  to  perform.  He  has  recognised 
him  as  his  Son  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  has  accepted  of 
his  blood  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  See  Rom.  4:  25.  1:  4.  Acts 
13:  32,  33.  1  Pet.  1:  3—5.  1  Cor.  15:  14,  et  seqq.  Acts  17:  31, 
"Whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  To  believe,  therefore,  that 
God  has  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  involves  the  belief  that 
Christ  is  all  that  he  claimed  to  be,  and  that  he  has  accomplished 
all  that  he  came  to  perform.  In  thy  heart.  Faith  is  very  far 
from  being  a  merely  speculative  exercise.  When  moral  or 
religious  truth  is  its  object,  it  is  always  attended  by  the  exercise 
of  the  affections. 

(10)  For  with  the  heart  manbelieveth  unto  ris;hteoitsnesSy 
and  ivith  the  'month  confession  is  made  unto  salvation. 
This  is  the  reason  why  faith  and  confession  are  alone  necessary 


ROMANS  10:  1— 10.  435 

unto  salvation;  because  he  who  believes  with  the  heart  is  justi- 
fied, and  he  who  openly  confesses  Christ  shall  be  saved.  That 
is,  such  is  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  as  the  apostle  proves  in  the 
subsequent  verse.  Here,  as  in  the  passages  referred  to  above, 
in  which  confession  is  connected  with  salvation,  it  is  evident 
that  it  must  be  not  only  open  but  sincere.  It  is  not  a  mere 
saying.  Lord,  Lord,  but  a  cordial  acknowledgement  of  him, 
before  men,  as  our  Lord  and  Redeemer.  Unto  righteousness^ 
or  justification,  i.  e.  so  that  we  may  be  justified.  And  unto 
salvation  is  equivalent  to  saying  'that  we  may  be  saved.' 
The  preposition  rendered  unto  expressing  here  the  effect  or 
result.  Acts  10:  4.  Heb.  6:  8.  By  faith  we  secure  an  interest 
in  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  by  confessing  him  before 
men,  we  secure  the  performance  of  his  promise  that  he  will 
confess  us  before  the  angels  of  God.* 

Doctrines. 

1.  Zeal,  to  be  either  acceptable  to  God  or  useful  to  men,  must 
not  only  be  right  as  to  its  ultimate,  but  also  as  to  its  immediate 
objects.  It  must  not  only  be  about  God,  but  about  the  things 
which  are  well  pleasing  in  his  sight.  The  Pharisees,  and  other 
early  Jewish  persecutors  of  Christians,  really  thought  they 
were  doing  God  service  when  they  were  so  exceedingly  zealous 
for  the  traditions  of  their  fathers.  The  moral  character  of  their 
zeal  and  its  effects  were  determined  by  the  immediate  objects 
towards  which  it  was  directed,  v.  2. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  justification,  or  method  of  securing  the 
pardon  of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God,  is  the  cardinal  doctrine 
in  the  religion  of  sinners.  The  main  point  is,  whether  the 
ground  of  pardon  and  acceptance  be  in  ourselves  or  in  another, 
whether  the  righteousness  on  which  we  depend  be  of  ourselves 
or  of  God,  V.  3. 

3.  Ignorance  of  the  divine  character  and  requirements  is  at 
the  foundation  of  all  ill-directed  efforts  for  the  attainment  of 
salvation,  and  of  all  false  hopes  of  heaven,  v.  3. 

4.  The  first  and  immediate  duty  of  the  sinner  is  to  submit  to 

•  Caeterum  viderint  quid  respondeant  Paulo,  qui  nobis  hodic  imaginariam 
quandam  fidem  fastuosc  jactant,  quae  sccreto  cordis  contcnta,  confessionc  oris, 
veluti  re  supeivacanea  ct  inani,  supersedeat.  Nimis  enim  nugatorium  est,  asscrcro 
ignem  esse,  ubi  nihil  sit  flammae  neque  caloris. — Caltin. 


436  ROMANS  10:  1—10. 

the  righteousness  of  God;  to  renounce  all  dependence  on  his 
own  merit,  and  cordially  to  embrace  the  offers  of  reconciliation 
proposed  in  the  gospel,  v.  3. 

5.  Unbelief,  or  the  refusal  to  submit  to  God's  plan  of  salva- 
tion, is  the  immediate  ground  of  the  condemnation  or  rejection 
of  those  who  perish  under  the  sound  of  the  gospel,  v.  3. 

6.  Christ  is  every  thing  in  the  religion  of  the  true  believer. 
He  fulfils,  and  by  fulfilling  abolishes  the  law,  by  whose  de- 
mands the  sinner  was  weighed  down  in  despair;  and  his  merit 
secures  the  justification  of  every  one  that  confides  in  him,  v.  4. 

7.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  whether  moral  or  ceremo- 
nial. To  him  both,  as  a  schoolmaster,  lead.  In  him  all  their 
demands  are  satisfied,  and  all  their  types  and  shadows  are  an- 
swered, v.  4. 

8.  The  legal  method  of  justification  is,  for  sinners,  as  imprac- 
ticable as  climbing  up  into  heaven  or  going  down  into  the 
abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 

9.  The  demands  of  the  gospel  are  both  simple  and  intelligi- 
ble. The  sincere  acceptance  of  the  proffered  righteousness  of 
God  and  the  open  acknowledgement  of  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord, 
vs.  6 — 9. 

10.  The  public  profession  of  religion  or  confession  of  Christ 
is  an  indispensable  duty.  That  is,  in  order  to  salvation,  we 
must  not  only  secretly  believe,  but  also  openly  acknowledge  that 
Jesus  is  our  prophet,  priest  and  king.  Though  faith  and  con- 
fession are  both  necessary,  they  are  not  necessary  on  the  same 
grounds,  nor  to  the  same  degree.  The  former  is  necessary  as 
a  means  to  an  end,  as  without  faith  we  can  have  no  part  in  the 
justifying  righteousness  of  Christ;  the  latter  as  a  duty,  the -per- 
formance of  which  circumstances  may  render  impracticable.  In 
like  manner  Christ  declares  baptism,  as  the  appointed  means  of 
confession,  to  be  necessary,  Mark  16:  16;  not,  however,  as  a 
sine  qua  non,  but  as  a  command,  the  obligation  of  which  pro- 
vidential dispensations  may  remove;  as  in  the  case  of  the  thief 
on  the  cross,  v.  9. 

11.  Faith  is  not  the  mere  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth  of 
certain  propositions.  It  is  a  cordial  persuasion  of  the  truth, 
founded  on  the  experience  of  its  power  or  the  spiritual  percep- 
tion of  its  nature,  and  on  the  divine  testimony.  Faith  is,  there- 
fore, a  moral  exercise.     INIen  believe  with  the  heart,  in  the 


ROMANf=l  10:  1—10.  437 

ordinary  scriptural  meaning  of  that  word.  And  no  faith,  which 
does  not  proceed  from  the  heart,  is  connected  witli  justifica- 
tion, V.  10. 

Remarks. 

1.  If  we  really  desire  the  salvation  of  men,  we  shall  pray 
for  it,  V.  1. 

2.  No  practical  mistake  is  more  common  or  more  dangerous 
than  to  suppose  that  all  zeal  about  God  and  religion  is  neces- 
sarily a  godly  zeal.  Some  of  the  very  worst  forms  of  human 
character  have  been  exhibited  by  men  zealous  for  God  and  his 
service;  as,  for  example,  the  persecutors  both  in  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches.  Zeal  should  be  according  to  know- 
ledge, i.  e.  directed  towards  proper  objects.  Its  true  character  is 
easily  ascertained  by  noticing  its  effects  whether  it  produces  self- 
righteousness  or  humility,  censoriousness  or  charity;  whether 
it  leads  to  self-denial  or  to  self-gratulation  and  praise;  and 
whether  it  manifests  itself  in  prayer  and  effort,  or  in  loud  talk- 
ing and  boasting,  v.  2. 

3.  We  should  be  very  careful  what  doctrines  we  hold  and 
teach  on  the  subject  of  justification.  He  who  is  wrong  here, 
ruins  his  own  soul;  and  if  he  teaches  any  other  than  the  scrip- 
tural method  of  justification,  he  ruins  the  souls  of  others,  v.  3. 

4.  A  sinner  is  never  safe,  do  what  else  he  may,  until  he  has 
submitted  to  God's  method  of  justification. 

5.  As  every  thing  in  the  bible  leads  us  to  Christ,  we  should 
suspect  every  doctrine,  system,  or  theory  which  has  a  contrary 
tendency.  That  view  of  religion  cannot  be  correct  which  does 
not  make  Christ  the  most  prominent  object,  v.  4. 

6.  How  obvious  and  infatuated  is  the  folly  of  the  multitude 
in  every  age,  country  and  church,  who,  in  one  form  or  another, 
are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a  righteousness  of  their  own, 
instead  of  submitting  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  They  are 
endeavouring  to  climb  up  to  heaven,  or  to  descend  into  the 
abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 

7.  The  conduct  of  unbelievers  is  perfectly  inexcusable,  who 
reject  the  simple,  easy  and  gracious  offers  of  the  gospel,  which 
requires  only  fiiith  and  confession,  vs.  8 — 9. 

8.  Those  who  are  ashamed  or  afraid  to  acknowledge  Christ 


438  ROMANS  10:  11— 21. 

before  men,  cannot  expect  to  be  saved.  The  want  of  courage 
to  confess,  is  decisive  evidence  of  the  want  of  heart  to  believe, 
vs.  9,  10. 


CHAP.  10:  11—21. 

The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  comparison  and 
contrast  of  the  two  methods  of  justification  was  to  show  that 
the  gospel  method  was  from  its  nature  adapted  to  all  men;  and 
that  if  suited  to  all  it  should  be  preached  to  all.  In  v.  11  the 
quotation  from  the  Old  Testament  proves  two  points.  1.  That 
faith  is  the  condition  of  acceptance,  and  2.  That  it  matters  not 
whether  the  individual  be  a  Jew  or  Gentile,  if  he  only  believes. 
For  there  is  really  no  difference,  as  to  this  point,  between  the 
two  classes;  God  is  equally  gracious  to  both,  as  is  proved  by 
the  express  declarations  of  scripture,  vs.  12,  13.  If  then  the 
method  of  salvation  be  thus  adapted  to  all,  and  God  is  equally 
the  God  of  the  Gentiles  and  of  the  Jews,  then  to  accomplish  his 
purpose,  the  gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  men,  because  faitli 
Cometh  by  hearing,  V.  14 — 17.  Both  the  fact  of  the  extension  of 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  disobedience  of  the  great 
part  of  the  Jews,  were  clearly  predicted  in  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament,  vs.  18 — 21. 

Commentary. 
(11)  For  the  scripture  saith,  ivhosoever  helieveth  on  him 
shall  not  be  ashamed.  This  passage  is  cited  in  support  of  tlie 
doctrine  just  taught  that  faith  alone  was  necessary  to  salvation. 
There  are  clearly  two  points  established  by  the  quotation;  the 
first  is,  the  universal  applicability  of  this  method  of  salvation; 
WHOSOEVER,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  believes,  &c.;  and  the 
second  is,  that  it  is  faith  which  is  the  means  of  securing  the 
divine  favour;  whosoever  believes  on  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed.  The  passage,  therefore,  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the 
apostle's  object;  which  was  not  merely  to  exhibit  the  true  nature 
of  the  plan  of  redemption,  but  mainly  to  show  tlie  propriety  of 
its  extension  to  the  Gentiles.  The  passage  quoted  is  Is.  28:  16, 
referred  to  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter. 


ROMANS  10:  11—21.  439 

(12)  For  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  the 
Greek,  &c.     This  verse  is  evidently  connected  logically  with 
the  ivhosoever  of  v.  12,  '  Whosoever  believes  shall  be  saved, 
for  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  Gentile.'     That 
is,  there  is  no  difference  in  their  relation  to  the  law  or  to  God. 
They  are  alike  sinners,  and  are  to  be  judged  by  precisely  the 
same  principles  (see  ch.  3:  22);  and  consequently  if  saved  at 
all,  are  to  be  saved  in  precisely  the  same  way.     For  the  same 
Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  who  call  upon  him.     This  is 
the  reason  why  there  is  no  difference  between  the  two  classes. 
Their  relation  to  God  is  the  same.     They  are  equally  his  crea- 
tures, and  his  mercy  towards  them  is  the  same.     It  is  doubtful 
whether  this  clause  is  to  be  understood  of  Christ  or  of  God. 
If  the  latter,  the  general  meaning  is  what  has  just  been  stated. 
If  the  former,  then  the  design  is  to  declare  that  the  same 
Saviour  is  ready  and  able  to  save  all.*     In  favour  of  this  latter, 
which  is  perhaps  the  most  common  view  of  the  passage,  it 
may  be  urged  that  Christ  is  the  person  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse;  and  secondly,  that  he  is  so  commonly  called  Lord 
in  the  New  Testament.     But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Lord  in 
the  next  verse  refers  to  God;  and  secondly,  we  have  the  same 
sentiment,  in  the  same  general  connexion,  in   ch.   3:  29,  30, 
"  Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only  ?  &c.     It  is  the  same  God 
which  shall  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  the  uncir- 
cumcision  through  faith."     The  same  Lord  over  all,  in  this 
connexion,  means  '  one  and  the  same  Lord  is  over  all.'     All  are 
equally  under  his  dominion,  and  may,  therefore,  equally  hope 
in  his  mercy.     The  words  is  rich  may  be  either  a  concise  ex- 
pression for  is  rich  in  mercy,  or  they  may  mean  is  abundant 
in  resources.     He  is  sufficiently  rich  to  supply  the  wants  of 
all;  whosoever,  therefore,  believes  in  him  shall  be  saved. t 

Unto  all  who  call  upon  him,  i.  e.  who  invoke  him  or  wor- 
ship him,  agreeably  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  phrase  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  Gen.  4:  26.  12:  8.  Is.  64:  6.  Acts  2: 
21.  9:  14,  &c.  This  religious  invocation  of  God  implied,  of 
course,  the  exercise  of  faith  in  him;  and,  therefore,  it  amounts 

*  Omnes  enim  ejusdem  Christi  jugum  forunt:  cujus  Domini  taiitac  sunt  opes, 
Ut  suis  omnibus  ditandis  et  beaiidis  abunde  sufficiant. — De  Bhais. 

•j-  Dives,  et  largus,  quem  nulla  quamvis  magna  credentium  multitudo  exhaurire 
potest;  qui  nunquam  necessc  habet  rcstrictius  agcre. — Bengbl. 


440  ROMANS  10:  11—21. 

to  the  same  thing  whether  it  is  said,  '  Whosoever  believes,'  or, 
'  Whosoever  calls  on  the  name  of  the  Lord'  shall  be  saved. 
This  being  the  case,  the  passage  quoted  from  Joel,  in  the  next 
verse,  is  equivalent  to  that  cited  from  Isaiah  in  verse  11.  The 
meaning,  then,  of  this  verse  is,  '  That  God  has  proposed  the 
same  terms  of  salvation  to  all  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  because 
he  is  equally  the  God  of  both,  and  his  mercy  is  free  and  suffi- 
cient for  all.'* 

(13)  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  saved.  As  this  verse  is  not  introduced  by  the  usual 
form  of  quotation  from  the  old  Testament,  as  it  is  written, 
or  as  the  scripture,  or  the  prophet  saith;  it  is  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  consider  it  as  a  direct  citatijon,  intended  as  an  argu- 
ment from  scripture  (compare  v.  11.)  Yet,  as  the  passage  is  in 
itself  so  pertinent,  it  is  probable  that  the  apostle  intended  to  con- 
firm his  declaration,  that  the  mercy  of  God  should  be  extended 
to  every  one  who  called  upon  him,  by  showing  that  the  ancient 
prophets  had  held  the  same  language.  The  prophet  Joel,  after 
predicting  the  dreadful  calamities  which  were  about  to  come 
upon  the  people,  foretold,  in  the  usual  manner  of  the  ancient 
messengers  of  God,  that  subsequent  to  those  judgments  should 
come  a  time  of  great  and  general  blessedness.  This  happy 
period  was  ever  characterized  as  one  in  which  true  religion 
should  prevail,  and  the  stream  of  divine  truth  and  love,  no  longer 
confined  to  the  narrow  channel  of  the  Jewish  people,  should 
overflow  all  nations.  Thus  Joel  says,  "  It  shall  come  to  pass 
afterward,  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  &c.,  and 
whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  de- 
livered," Joel  2:  28,  32.  Whosoever,!  therefore,  betakes 
himself  to  God  as  his  refuge,  and  calls  upon  him  in  the  exercise 
of  faith  as  his  God,  shall  be  saved,  whether  Gentile  or  Jew, 
(see  1  Cor.  1 :  2).  This  is  Paul's  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine, 
with  one  accord,  of  all  the  holy  men  who  spake  of  old,  as  the 

*  Nullum  erit  discrimrn  gcntis  aut  natioiiis.  Et  aiklit  firniissimam  rationcni : 
nam  si  is,  qui  muudi  totius  est  Creator  et  opifex,  omnium  hominum  est  Deus: 
omnibus  benignum  so  cxliibet,  a  quibus  pro  Ueo  agiiitus  et  invocatus  fucrit. — 
Caltin. 

j-  Hoc  monosyllabon,  tmc,  toto  mundo  pretiosius,  propositum  (v.  11),  ita  repe- 
tilur  (v.  12,  13),  et  ita  conlirinatur  uitcrius  (v.  14,  15),  iit  non  modo  significet, 
quicuuque  invocarit,  salvum  fore,  sed  Deum  vellc  se  invocari  ab  omnibus  salutariter. 


ROMANS  10:  11—21.  441 

Spirit  gave  them  utterance.  This  being  the  case,  liow  utterly- 
preposterous  and  wicked  the  attempt  to  confine  the  offers  of 
salvation  to  the  Jewish  people,  or  to  question  the  necessity  of 
the  extension  of  the  gospel  through  the  whole  world.  Thus 
naturally  and  beautifully  does  the  apostle  pass  from  the  nature 
of  the  plan  of  mercy,  and  its  suitableness  to  all  men,  to  the 
subject  principally  in  view,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  or  the 
duty  of  preaching  the  gospel  to  all  people. 

(14,  15)  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in  ivhoni  they 
have  not  believed?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard?  &c.  &c.  Paul  considered  it  as 
involved  in  what  he  had  already  said,  and  especially  in  the 
predictions  of  the  ancient  prophets,  that  it  was  the  will  of  God 
that  all  men  should  call  upon  him.  This  being  the  case,  he 
argues  to  prove  that  it  was  his  will  that  the  gospel  should  be 
preached  to  all.  As  invocation  implies  faith,  as  faith  implies 
knowledge,  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  an  instructor, 
so  it  is  plain  that  if  God  would  have  all  men  to  call  upon  him, 
he  designed  preachers  to  be  sent  to  all,  whose  proclamation  of 
mercy  being  heard,  might  be  believed,  and  being  believed 
might  lead  men  to  call  on  him  and  be  saved.  This  is  agreea- 
ble to  the  prediction  of  Isaiah,  who  foretold  that  the  advent  of 
the  preachers  of  the  gospel  should  be  hailed  with  great  and 
universal  joy.  According  to  this,  which  is  the  common  and 
most  natural  view  of  the  passage,  it  is  an  argument  founded  on 
the  principle,  that  if  God  wills  the  end,  he  wills  also  the  means  j 
if  he  would  have  the  Gentiles  saved,  according  to  the  predic- 
tions of  his  prophets,  he  would  have  the  gospel  preached  to 
them.*  Calvin's  view  of  the  object  of  the  passage  is  the  same, 
but  his  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  argument  is  very  different. 
He  supposes  the  apostle  to  reason  thus.  The  Gentiles  actually 
call  upon  God;  but  invocation  implies  faith,  faith  hearing,  hear- 
ing preaching,  and  preaching  a  divine  mission.  If,  therefore, 
the  Gentiles  have  actually  received  and  obeyed  the  gospel,  it  is 
proof  enough  that  God  designed  it  to  be  sent  to  them.  This 
interpretation  is  ingenious  and  affords  a  good  sense;  but  it  is 
founded  on  an  assumption  which  the  Jew  would  be  slow  to 

*  Qui  Tult  lincm,  vult  ctiam  media.  Deus  vult  ut  homines  invocent  i[)sum  salu- 
tariter.  Ergo  vult  ut  crrdant.  Ergo  vTiIt  ut  audiant.  Ergo  vult  ut  habeoiit  pracdi- 
catores.     Itaque  pracdicatorcs  misit. — Bengel. 

56 


442  ROMANS  10:  11— 21. 

admit,  that  the  Gentile  was  an  acceptable  worshipper  of  God, 
If  he  admitted  this,  he  admitted  every  thing,  and  the  argument 
becomes  unnecessary. 

(15)  ^s  it  is  written,  hoiv  hecmtiful  are  the  feet  of  them 
that  preach  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  bring  glad  tidings  of 
good  things.  The  word  here  rendered  preach  the  gospel, 
is  the  same  as  that  immediately  afterwards  translated,  bring 
glad  tidings.  The  word  gospel,  therefore,  must  be  taken  in 
its  original  meaning,  good  neivs,  the  good  neivs  of  peace.  The 
passage  in  Is.  52:  7,  which  the.apostle  faithfully,  as  to  the  mean- 
ing, follows,  has  reference  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  It  is 
one  of  those  numerous  prophetic  declarations,  which  announce 
in  general  terms  the  coming  deliverance  of  the  church,  a  de- 
liverance which  embraced,  as  the  first  stage  of  its  accomplish- 
ment, the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  captivity.  This, 
however,  so  far  from  being  the  blessing  principally  intended, 
derived  all  its  value  from  being  introductory  to  that  more 
glorious  deliverance  to  be  effected  by  the  Redeemer.  Hoiu 
beautiful  the  feet  of  course  means,  how  delightful  the  approach. 
The  bearing  of  this  passage  on  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  suffi- 
ciently obvious.  He  had  proved  that  the  gospel  should  be 
preached  to  all  men,  and  refers  to  the  declaration  of  the  ancient 
prophet,  which  spoke  of  the  joy  with  which  the  advent  of  the 
messengers  of  mercy  should  be  hailed. 

(16)  But  they  have  7iot  all  obeyed  the  gospel,  for  Isaiah 
saith,  Lord  who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  This  is  a  difficult 
verse,  as  it  is  not  easy  to  see  its  connexion  with  the  apostle's 
object.  It  may  be  viewed  as  an  objection  to  his  doctrine,  con- 
firmed by  the  quotation  of  a  passage  from  Isaiah.  '  You  say 
the  gospel  ought  to  be  preached  to  all  men,  but  if  God  had 
intended  that  it  should  be  preached  to  them,  they  would  obey 
it;  which  they  have  not  done.'  This  view  of  the  passage 
would  have  some  plausibility  if  Calvin's  representation  of  Paul's 
argument  were  correct.  Did  the  apostle  reason  from  the  fact 
that  the  Gentiles  believed  that  it  was  God's  intention  they  should 
have  the  gospel  preached  to  them,  it  would  be  very  natural  to 
object,  that  as  only  a  few  have  obeyed,  it  was  evidently  not 
designed  for  them.  But  even  on  the  supposition  of  the  correctness 
of  this  view  of  the  argument,  this  interpretation  of  v.  16,  is 
barely  possible,  for  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  cannot  be  under- 


ROMANS  10:  11—21.  443 

stood  otherwise  than  as  the  language  of  the  apostle.  It  is  better, 
therefore,  to  consider  this  verse  as  virtually  a  parenthesis,  '  The 
gospel  must  be,  and  has  been  widely  proclaimed,  though 
indeed  all  have  not  obeyed  it,  as  had  been  predicted  by  Isaiah; 
when  he  exclaimed  Lord  who  hath  believed  our  report?'  The 
word  rendered  report  is  that  which  in  the  next  verse  is  ren- 
dered hearing.  It  properly  means  the  faculty  of  hearings  then 
something  heard,  and  thus  is  put  for  discourse,  doctrine  or 
instruction. 

(17)  So  then  faith  cometh  hy  hearing,  and  heariiig  hy  the 
ivord  of  God.  Though  this  verse  receives  its  form  from  the 
preceding,  it  is  logically  connected  with  vs.  14,  15.  The  con- 
clusion from  what  had  there  been  said  is,  '  Faith  is  founded 
on  instruction,  and  this  instruction  supposes  a  divine  commu- 
nication.' If  men  therefore  are  to  believe,  they  must  hear  the 
message  of  God;  and  that  such  a  message  is  delivered  of  course 
supposes  that  God  has  spoken,  and  has  spoken  what  is  to  be  de- 
livered, as  his  word,  to  all  those  who  are  expected  to  believe.  It 
seems  to  be  the  apostle's  object  to  show  that  such  a  report  as 
could  be  the  ground  of  faith,  could  only  proceed  on  the  basis  of 
a  divine  communication,  and  therefore  as  such  a  report  was 
actually  to  be  made  to  the  Gentiles,  it  implied  that  the  divine 
message,  the  word  of  God,  or  the  gospel,  was  designed  for 
them  as  well  as  for  the  Jews. 

(18)  But  I  say,  Have  they  not  heard?  Yes,  verily,  their 
sound  ivent  into  all  the  earth,  &c.  The  concise  and  abrupt 
manner  of  argument  and  expression  in  this  and  the  verses  which 
precede  and  follow,  renders  tbe  apostle's  meaning  somewhat 
doubtful.  This  verse  is  frequently  considered  as  referring  to 
the  Jews,  and  designed  to  show  that  their  want  of  faith  could 
not  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  want  of  knowledge.  The  sense 
of  the  passage  would  then  be,  '  As  faith  cometh  by  hearing, 
have  hot  the  Jews  heard?  Have  they  not  had  the  opportunity 
of  believing?  Yes,  indeed,  for  the  gospel  has  been  proclaimed 
far  and  wide.'  So  Koppe,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  &c.  But  there  are 
several  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  context.  Paul  is  not  speaking 
now  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  or  the  grounds  of  it,  but  of  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles.  2.  The  1 6th  verse  refers  to  the  Gentiles. 
"They  have  not  all  obeyed  the  gospel,"  and  therefore  this 


444  ROMANS  10:  11—21. 

verse,  "  Have  they  not  heard  ?"  cannot,  without  any  intimation 
of  change,  be  naturally  referred  to  a  different  subject.  3.  In  the 
following  verse,  where  the  Jews  are  really  intended,  they  ai'e 
distinctly  mentioned,  "  Did  not  Israel  know." 

Paul's  object  in  the  whole  context  is  to  vindicate  the  pro- 
priety of  extending  the  gospel  call  to  all  nations.  This  he  had 
beautifully  done  in  vs.  14,  15,  by  showing  that  preaching  was 
a  necessary  means  of  accomplishing  the  clearly  revealed  will  of 
God,  that  men  of  all  nations  should  participate  in  his  grace. 
'  True,  indeed,  as  had  been  foretold,  the  merciful  oflfers  of  the 
gospel  were  not  universally  accepted,  v.  16,  but  still  faith  com- 
eth  by  hearing,  and  therefore  the  gospel  should  be  widely 
preached,  v.  17.  Well,  has  not  this  been  done?  has  not  the 
angel  of  mercy  broke  loose  from  his  long  confinement  within 
the  pale  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  flown  through  the  heavens 
with  the  proclamation  of  love?'  v.  18.  This  verse,  therefore,  is 
to  be  considered  as  a  strong  declaration  that  what  Paul  had 
proved  ought  to  be  done,  had  in  fact  been  accomplished.  The 
middle  wall  of  partition  had  been  broken  down,  the  gospel  of 
salvation,  the  religion  of  God,  was  free  from  its  trammels,  the 
offers  of  mercy  were  as  wide  and  general  as  the  proclamation  of 
the  heavens.  This  idea  the  apostle  beautifully  and  appositely 
expresses  in  the  sublime  language  of  Ps.  1  9,  "  The  heavens  de- 
clare the  glory  of  God,  day  unto  day  uttereth  speech,  there  is 
no  speech  nor  languuge  where  their  voice  is  not  heard,  their 
line  is  gone  through  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of 
the  world."  The  last  verse  contains  the  words  used  by  the 
apostle.  His  object  in  using  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  was,  no 
doubt,  to  convey  more  clearly  and  affectingly  to  the  minds  of 
his  hearers  the  idea  that  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  was 
now  as  free  from'  all  national  or  ecclesiastical  restrictions,  as 
the  instructions  shed  down  upon  all  people  by  the  heavens  un- 
der which  they  dwell.  Paul  of  course  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  quoting  the  Psalmist  as  though  the  ancient  prophet  was 
speaking  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  He  simply  uses  scrip- 
tural language  to  express  his  own  ideas,  as  is  done  involuntarily 
almost  by  every  preacher  in  every  sermon.* 

*  Calvin's  view  of  this  passage  is  peculiar,  Quacrit,  an  Dous  nunquam  ante 
gentcs  voccra  suam  direxit,  et  doctoris  ollk-io  functus  sit  crga  totum  mundum. — 
Accipio  igitur  ejus  citatiouem  in  proprio  ct  germano  prophctae  scnsu,  ut  talc  sit  ar- 


ROMANS  10:  11— 21,  445 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  apostle  says,  "  Their  sound  has 
gone,  &c.;"  whereas  in  the  19th  Ps.  it  is,  "  Their  line  is  gone," 
Paul  follows  the  Scptuagint,  which,  instead  of  giving  the  literal 
sense  of  the  Hebrew  word,  gives  correctly  its  figurative  mean- 
ing. The  word  signifies  a  line,  then  a  musical  chord,  and 
then  metonymically,  sound. 

(19)  But  I  say.  Did  not  Israel  know  ?  First  Moses  saithj 
I  luill  provoke  you  to  jealousy,  &lq,.     Another  passage  difficult 
from  its  conciseness.     The  difficulty  is  to  ascertain  what  the 
question  refers  to.     Did  not  Israel  know  what  ?    The  gospel  ? 
or,  The  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  their  own  rejection  ?    The 
latter  seems,  for  two  reasons,  the  decidedly  preferable  interpre- 
tation,    1.  The  question  is  most  naturally  understood  as  refer- 
ring to  the   main  subject  under  discussion,  which  is,  as  fre- 
quently remarked,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  rejection  of 
the  Jews,      2.  The  question  is  explained  by  the  quotations 
which  follow.     '  Does  not  Israel  know  what  Moses  and  Isaiah 
so  plainly  teach  ?'  viz,  that  a  people  who  were  no  people  should 
be  preferred  to  Israel ;  while  the  latter  were  to  be  regarded  as 
disobedient  and  gain-saying.     According  to  the  other  interpre- 
tation, the  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  '  Does  not  Israel  know  the 
gospel  ?    Have  not  the  people  of  God  been  instructed  ?    If, 
therefore,  as  was  predicted,  they  are  superseded  by  the  heathen, 
it  must  be  their  own  fault.'     Calvin  thinks  there  is  an  evident 
contrast  between  this  and  the  preceding  verse,     '  If  even   the 
heathen  have  had  some  knowledge  of  God,  how  is  it  with  Israel, 
the  favoured  people  of  God,  &c.'     But  this  whole  interpretation, 
as  intimated  above,  is  inconsistent  with  the  drift  of  the  context, 
and  the  spirit  of  the  passages  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament. 

Fi7'st  Moses  says,  I  luill  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them 
that  are  no  people,  &c.  'The  word  first  seems  evidently  to  be 
used  in  reference  to  Isaiah,  who  is  quoted  afterward,  and  should 
not  be  connected,  as  it  is  by  many,  with  Israel.  '  Did  not  Israel 
first  learn  the  gospel  ?  &c.'  So  Storr,  Flatt,  &c.  Better  in  the 
ordinary  way,  '  First  Moses,  and  then  Isaiah,  says,  &c,'     The 

gumentum :  Deus  jam  ab  initio  mundi  suani  gentibus  divinitatem  manifcstarct,  et 
si  non  hoirdnum  praedicationc,  creaturaruiu  tamcn  suarum  tcstimoiiio. — Ajiparct 
ergo,  Dominum  etiain  pro  co  tempore,  quo  foederis  sui  gratiaui  in  Isracle  continebat, 
non  tamen  ita  sui  notitiam  gcntibus  subduxissc,  quin  aliquain  semper  illis  sciiilil- 
1am  accenderet. 


440  ROMANS  10:  11—21. 

passage  quoted  from  Moses  is  Deut.  32 :  21.  In  that  chapter  the 
sacred  writers  recounts  the  mercies  of  God,  and  the  ingratitude 
and  rebellion  of  the  people.  In  v.  21  he  warns  them,  that  as 
they  had  provoked  him  to  jealousy  by  that  which  is  not  God, 
he  would  provoke  them  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  no  people. 
That  is,  as  they  forsook  him  and  made  choice  of  another  God, 
so  he  would  reject  them  and  make  choice  of  another  people. 
The  passage,  therefore,  plainly  enough  intimates  that  the  Jews 
were  in  no  such  sense  the  people  of  God,  as  to  interfere  with 
their  being  cast  off  and  others  called. 

(20,  21)  But  Esaias  is  very  hold,  and  saith,  &c.  That  is, 
according  to  a  very  common  Hebrew  construction  in  which 
one  verb  qualifies  another  adverbially,  saith  very  plainly  or 
openly.  Plain  as  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is,  it  is  not  so 
clear  and  pointed  as  that  now  referred  to.  Is.  65:  1,2. 

Paul  follows  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  passage,  merely 
transposing  the  clauses.  The  sense  is  accurately  expressed.  'I 
am  sought  of  them  that  asked  not  for  me,  I  am  found  of  them 
that  sought  me  not,'  is  the  literal  version  of  the  Hebrew,  as 
given  in  our  translation.  The  apostle  quotes  and  applies  the 
passage  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
ancient  prophet.  In  the  first  verse  of  that  chapter  Isaiah  says, 
that  God  will  manifest  himself  to  those  "who  were  not  called  by 
his  name;"  and  in  the  second,  he  gives  the  immediate  reason 
of  this  turning  unto  the  Gentiles,  "  I  have  stretched  out  my 
hand  all  the  day  to  a  rebellious  people."  This  quotation,  there- 
fore, confirms  both  the  great  doctrines  taught  in  this  chapter; 
the  Jews  were  no  longer  the  exclusive  or  peculiar  people  of 
God,  and  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  were  thrown 
wide  open  to  all  mankind.  With  regard  to  Israel  the  language 
of  God  is  peculiarly  strong  and  tender.  Jill  day  long  I  have 
stretched  forth  my  hands.  The  stretching  forth  the  hands 
is  the  gesture  of  invitation,  and  even  supplication.  God  has 
extended  wide  his  arms,  and  urged  men  frequently  and  long  to 
return  to  his  love;  and  it  is  only  tliose  who  refuse,  that  he  finally 
rejects. 

Doctrines. 
1.  Christianity  is,  from  its  nature,  adapted  to  be  an  universal 
religion.     There  is  nothing,  as  was  tlie  case  with  Judaism, 


ROMANS  10:  11—21.  447 

which  binds  it  to  a  particular  location  or  confines  it  to  a  par- 
ticular people.  All  its  duties  may  be  performed,  and  all  its 
blessings  enjoyed,  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  by  every 
nation  under  heaven,  vs.  11 — 13. 

2.  The  relation  of  men  to  God,  and  his  to  them,  is  not  de- 
termined by  any  national  or  ecclesiastical  connexion.  He  deals 
with  all,  on  the  same  general  principles,  and  is  ready  to  save  all 
who  call  upon  him,  v.  12. 

3.  Whosoever  will,  may  take  of  the  water  of  life.  The 
essential  conditions  of  salvation  have  in  every  age  been  the 
same.  Even  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  God  ac- 
cepted all  who  sincerely  invoked  his  name,  v.  13. 

4.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  great  means  of  salvation, 
and  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  it  should  be  extended  to  all  people, 
vs.  14,  15. 

5.  As  invocation  implies  faith,  and  faith  requires  knowledge, 
and  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  teachers,  and  teachers 
a  mission,  it  is  evidently  not  only  that  God  wills  that  teachers 
should  be  sent  to  all  those  whom  he  is  willing  to  save,  when  they 
call  upon  him,  but  that  all  parts  of  this  divinely  connected  chain 
of  causes  and  effects  are  necessary  to  the  end  proposed,  viz.  the 
salvation  of  men.  It  is,  therefore,  as  incumbent  on  those  who 
have  the  power,  to  send  the  gospel  abroad,  as  it  is  on  those  to 
whom  it  is  sent,  to  receive  it,  vs.  14,  15. 

6.  As  the  rudiments  of  the  tree  are  in  the  seed,  so  all  the 
elements  of  the  New  Testament  doctrines  are  in  the  Old.  The 
Christian  dispensation  is  the  explanation,  fulfilment,  and  de- 
velopement  of  the  Jewish,  vs.  11,  13,  15. 

Remarks. 

1.  Christians  should  breathe  the  spirit  of  an  universal  religion. 
A  religion  which  regards  all  men  as  brethren,  which  looks 
on  God,  not  as  the  God  of  this  nation,  or  of  that  church,  but  as 
the  God  and  father  of  all,  which  proposes  to  all  the  same  con- 
ditions of  acceptance,  and  which  opens  equally  to  all  the  same 
boundless  and  unsearchable  blessings,  vs.  11 — 13. 

2.  It  must  be  very  offensive  to  God,  who  looks  on  all  men 
with  equal  favour  (except  as  moral  conduct  makes  a  difference), 
to  observe  how  one  class  of  mortals  looks  down  upon  another, 
on  account  of  some  merely  adventitious  difference  of  rank. 


448  ROMANS  10:  11— 21. 

colour,  external  circumstances,  or  social  or  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexions, V.  12. 

3.  How  will  the  remembrance  of  tlie  simplicity  and  reasona- 
bleness of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  the  readiness  of  God  to 
accept  of  all  who  call  upon  him,  overwhelm  those  who  perish 
from  beneath  the  sound  of  the  gospel!  v.  13. 

4.  It  is  the  first  and  most  pressing  duty  of  the  church  to 
cause  all  men  to  hear  the  gospel.  The  solemn  question,  implied 
in  the  language  of  the  apostle.  How  can  they  believe  with- 
out A  PREACHER  ?  should  souud  day  and  night  in  the  ears  of  the 
churches,  vs.  14,  15. 

5.  "  How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?"  The  fail- 
ure of  the  whole  must  result  from  the  failure  of  any  one  of  the 
parts  of  the  system  of  means.  How  long,  alas!  has  the  failure 
been  in  the  very  first  step.  Preachers  have  not  been  sent,  and 
if  not  sent,  how  could  men  hear,  believe,  or  call  upon  God  ? 
vs.  14,  15. 

6.  If"  faith  comes  by  hearing,"  how  great  is  the  value  of  a 
stated  ministry!  How  obvious  the  duty  to  establish,  sustain 
and  attend  upon  it!  v.  17. 

7.  The  gospel's  want  of  success,  or  the  fact  that  few  believe 
our  report,  is  only  a  reason  for  its  wider  extension.  The  more 
who  hear,  the  more  will  be  saved,  although  it  be  but  a  small 
proportion  of  the  whole,  v.  16. 

8.  How  delightful  will  be  the  time  when  literally  the  sound 
of  the  gospel  shall  be  as  extensively  diffused  as  the  declaration 
which  the  heavens,  in  their  circuit,  make  of  the  glory  of 
God!  V.  IS. 

9.  The  blessings  of  a  covenant  relation  to  God  is  the  un- 
alienable right  of  no  people  and  of  no  church,  but  can  be  pre- 
served only  by  fidelity  on  the  part  of  men  to  the  covenant 
itself,  v.  If). 

10.  God  is  often  found  by  those  who  apparently  are  the 
farthest  from  him,  while  he  remains  undiscovered  by  those  who 
think  themselves  always  in  his  presence,  v.  20. 

11.  God's  dealings,  even  with  reprobate  sinners,  are  full  of 
tenderness  and  compassion.  All  the  day  long  he  extends  the 
arms  of  his  mercy  even  to  the  disobedient  and  the  gainsaying. 
This  will  be  felt  and  acknowledged  at  last  by  all  who  perish,  to 


ROMANS  11:  1—10.  449 

the  glory  of  God's  forbearance,  and  to  their  own  confusion  and 
self-condemnation,  v.  21. 

12.  Communities  and  individuals  should  beware  how  they 
slight  the  mercies  of  God,  and  especially  how  they  turn  a  deaf 
ear  to  the  invitations  of  the  gospel.  For  when  tlie  blessings 
of  a  church  relation  have  once  been  withdrawn  from  a  people, 
they  are  long  in  being  restored.  Witness  the  Jewish  and  the 
fallen  Christian  churches.  And  when  God  ceases  to  urge 
on  the  disobedient  sinner  the  offers  of  mercy,  his  destiny  is 
sealed,  v.  21. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Contents. 
This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts,  vs.  1 — 10,  and  11 — 36. 
In  the  former,  the  apostle  teaches  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 
was  not  total.  There  was  a  remnant,  and  perhaps  a  much 
larger  remnant  than  many  might  suppose,  excepted,  although 
the  mass  of  the  nation,  agreeably  to  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets,  was  cast  off,  vs.  1 — 10.  In  the  latter,  he  shows  that 
this  rejection  is  not  final.  In  the  first  place,  the  restoration  of 
the  Jews  is  a  desirable  and  probable  event,  vs.  11 — 24.  In  the 
second,  it  is  one  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass,  vs. 
25 — 32.  The  chapter  closes  with  a  sublime  declaration  of  the 
unsearchable  wisdom  of  God,  manifested  in  all  his  dealings  with 
men,  vs.  33 — 36.  In  the  consideration  of  the  great  doctrinal 
truths  taught  in  this  chapter,  Paul  intersperses  many  practical 
remarks,  designed  to  give  these  truths  their  proper  influence 
both  on  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  especially  the  latter. 


CHAP.  11:  1—10. 

%^nalysis. 
The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not  total,  as  is  sufficiently  mani- 
fest from  the  example  of  the  apostle  himself,  to  say  nothing  of 
others,  v.  1.     God  had  reserved  a  remnant  faithful  to  himself,  as 
was  the  case  in  the  times  of  Elias,  vs.  2 — 1.     That  this  remnant 

57 


450  ROMANS  11:  1—10. 

is  saved,  is  a  matter  entirely  of  grace,  vs.  5,  6.  The  real  truth 
of  the  case  is,  that  Israel  as  a  nation  is  excluded  from  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  but  the  chosen  ones  are  admitted  to  its  blessings, 
V.  7.  This  rejection  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Jews,  their  own 
scriptures  had  predicted,  vs.  8 — 10. 

Commentary. 

(1)  /  say  then,  hath  God  cast  away  his  people?  God 
forbid,  &c.  When  we  consider  how  many  promises  are  made 
to  the  Jewish  nation  as  God's  peculiar  people:  and  how  often 
it  is  said,  as  in  Ps.  94:  14,  "The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  his 
people,"  it  is  not  wonderful,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews,  as  taught  in  the  preceding  cliapters,  appeared 
inconsistent  with  these  repeated  declarations  of  the  word  of 
God.  Paul  removes  this  difficulty  by  showing  in  what  sense 
the  Jews  were  rejected,  ond  in  what  way  the  ancient  promises 
are  to  be  understood.  All  the  Jews  were  not  cast  off,  and  the 
promises  did  not  contemplate  all  the  Jewish  people,  as  shown 
above  in  the  ninth  chapter,  but  only  the  true  Israel.  There 
was,  therefore,  no  inconsistency  between  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostle,  and  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament. 

There  must  be  an  emphasis  laid  upon  the  question  in  this 
verse,  *  Hath  God  entirely  cast  off  his  people  ?  or  hath  God 
cast  off  his  whole  people  ?  Has  he  rejected  all  ?  By  no  means. 
Such  is  not  my  doctrine.'  The  question  may  also  be  under- 
stood as  meaning,  *Has  God  cast  off  his  true  spiritual  people  ?' 
But  this  is  not  so  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  nor 
with  the  proof,  afforded  in  his  own  case  by  the  apostle,  that  the 
objection  suggested  by  the  interrogation  was  unfounded.  The 
fact  that  he,  a  Jew,  was  not  rejected,  was  evidence  rather  that 
the  whole  nation  was  not  cast  off,  than  that  the  true  Israel 
were  excepted.  The  distinction  between  the  external  and  the 
spiritual  Israel  seems  to  be  first  referred  to  in  the  next  verse. 
For  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  of  the  seed  of  Jlhraham,  of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin;  (see  Phil.  3:  5.)  The  apostle  is  thus 
particular  in  his  statement,  to  make  it  appear  that  he  was  not  a 
mere  proselyte,  but  a  Jew  by  birth,  and  consequently,  as  he  did 
not  teach  his  own  rejection  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  he  could 
not  be  understood  as  teaching  that  God  had  cast  off  all  his 
ancient  people. 


ROMANS  11:  1—10.  451 

(2)  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  luhich  he  foreknew. 
This  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  words  his 
people  may  be  understood,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  as  meaning 
the  Jeivish  nation,  and  the  clause  which  he  foreknew  as  by 
implication  assigning  the  reason  for  the  declaration  that  God 
had  not  cast  them  off.  The  clause,  according  to  this  view,  is 
little  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding 
verse.  '  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  what  I  have  said  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  that  God  has  cast  away  all  his  chosen 
people.  Multitudes  are  excepted  now,  as  in  the  days  of  Elias.' 
The  second  interpretation  requires  more  stress  to  be  laid  upon 
the  words  which  he  foreknew,  as  qualifying  and  distinguishing 
the  preceding  phrase,  his  people.  '  God  has  indeed  rejected  his 
external  people,  the  Jewish  nation  as  such,  but  he  has  not  cast 
away  his  people  whom  he  foreknew.'  According  to  this  view, 
his  people  means  his  elect,  his  spiritual  people,  or  the  true 
Israel.  This  interpretation  seems  decidedly  preferable,  1.  Be- 
cause it  is  precisely  the  distinction  which  Paul  had  made,  and 
made  for  the  same  purpose,  in  ch.  9:  6 — 8,  'The  rejection  of 
the  external  Israel  does  not  invalidate  the  promises  of  God, 
because  those  promises  did  not  contemplate  the  natural  seed  as 
such,  but  the  spiritual  Israel.  So,  now,  when  I  say  that  the  ex- 
ternal Israel  is  rejected,  it  does  not  imply  that  the  true  chosen 
Israel,  to  whom  the  promises  pertained,  is  cast  away.'  2.  Be- 
cause this  is  apparently  Paul's  own  explanation  in  the  sequel. 
The  mass  of  the  nation  were  cast  away,  but  "a  remnant, 
according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  were  reserved,  v.  5.  Israel, 
as  such,  Paul  says  in  v.  7,  failed  of  admission  to  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  "  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it."  It  is,  therefore, 
evident  that  the  people  which  God  foreknew,  and  which  were 
not  cast  off,  is  "  the  remnant"  spoken  of  in  v.  5,  and  "  the 
election"  mentioned  in  v.  7.  3.  Because  the  illustration  bor- 
rowed from  the  Old  Testament  best  suits  this  interpretation. 
In  the  days  of  Elias,  God  rejected  the  great  body  of  the  people; 
but  reserved  to  himself  a  remnant,  chosen  in  sovereign  grace. 
The  distinction,  therefore,  in  both  cases,  is  between  the  external 
and  the  chosen  people. 

Which  he  foreknew.  On  the  different  senses  of  the  word 
rendered  he  forekneiv,  see  ch.  8:  29.  Compare  Rom.  7:  15. 
2  Tim.  3:  19.   1  Cor.  8:  3.  Gal.  4:  9.  Prov.  12:  10.  Ps.  101:  4. 


452  ROMANS  11:  1—10. 

1  Thess.  5:  12.  Matt.  7:  23.  The  examples,  however,  are  nu- 
merous and  familiar,  in  which  the  word  which  signifies  literally 
to  know,  means  to  approve,  to  regard  with  affection,  to  love. 
And  as  to  love  one  more  than  others  involves  the  idea  of  selec- 
tion, so  the  verb  signifies  also  to  select,  determine  upon;  see 
the  compound  word  here  rendered  to  foreJoiow,  in  1  Pet.  1:  20. 
Compare  1  Pet  1:  2,  and  other  passages. quoted  in  Rom.  8:  29. 
It  depends  on  the  context,  which  sense  of  the  word  is  to  be 
adopted.  The  idea  of  simple  prescience  obviously  does  not 
suit  the  passage.  Others,  therefore,  prefer  rendering  the  phrase 
wliich,  he  before  loved;  others,  wliich  he  had  chosen.  This 
idea  is  included  in  the  other,  and  is  the  best  suited  to  the  con- 
text. 'The  people  which  God  foreknew'  means,  therefore, 
*  his  chosen  people;'  "  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
grace,"  i.  e.  graciously  elected;  or,  as  explained  in  v.  7,  "the 
election,"  i.  e.  those  who  are  chosen.  Paul  therefore  teaches,  that 
God  has  indeed  rejected  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  but  not  his  chosen 
people.  From  among  the  multitude,  whom,  for  their  rejection 
of  the  Messiah,  he  has  cast  away,  he  has  reserved  those  whom 
he  had  chosen  for  himself.  The  illustration  which  the  apostle 
cites  is  peculiarly  appropriate.  Wot  ye  not  what  tJie  scrijitiire 
saith  of  Elias  ?  Literally,  in  Elias,  i.  c.  in  the  section  which 
treats  of  Elias,  or  which  is  designated  by  his  name.  Another  ex- 
ample of  the  same  method  of  reference  to  scripture  is  supposed  to 
occur  in  Mark  12:26,  "  In  the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,"  i.  e.  in 
the  section  which  treats  of  the  burning  bush.  How  he  maketh 
intercession  to  God  against  Israel.  The  word  rendered  '  to 
make  intercession,'  signifies  to  approach  to  any  one,  it  may  be 
for  or  against  another;  see  ch.  8:  26. 

(3)  Lord,  they  have  killed  tJiy  prophets  and  digged  down 
thine  altars,  and  I  am  left  alone,  &c.;  see  1  Kings  19:  10. 
Paul  gives  the  sense  and  nearly  the  words  of  the  original.  The 
event  referred  to  was  the  great  defection  from  the  true  religion, 
and  murder  of  the  prophets  of  God,  during  the  reign  of  Ahab. 
The  circumstance  to  which  the  apostle  specially  refers  is,  that 
the  prophet  considered  the  defection  entire,  and  himself  the  only 
worshipper  of  tlic  true  God  left;  whereas,  in  fact,  there  were 
many  who  remained  faithful. 

(4)  But  what  saith  llie  answer  of  God  unto  liim  ?  I  have 
reserved  to  myself  seven  tfiousand  men,  &c. ;  1  Kings  19:  IS. 


ROMANS  11:  l— lo.  453 

Answer  of  God  {xsw^TKftt-k),  divine  response  or  oracle;  see  the 
use  of  the  corresponding  verb  {x^W^'^'^l'^),  Heb.  12:  25.  11:7, 
Matt.  2:12.  Luke  2:  26.  Acts  10:  22.  It  is  probable  that  the 
number  seven  thousand  is  to  be  taken  for  an  indefinitely  large 
number.  Those  who  remained  faithful  to  God  are  described  as 
those  who  did  not  bow  the  knee  to  Baal.  This  was  a  Pho;nician 
or  Canaanitish  deity,  frequently  worshipped  by  the  idolatrous 
Hebrews.  The  word  Baal  properly  means  Lord,  Ruler,  and 
probably  designates  the  same  deity  which  among  the  Chaldeans 
was  called  Bel  or  Belus.  The  name  is  almost  alwa)^s  masculine. 
The  Septuagint  prefix  the  feminine  article  to  it  in  Hosca  2:  8. 
Jer.  2:  8.  19:  5.  Zephaniah  1:  4,  but  in  no  one  of  these  places 
is  there  any  thing  in  the  Hebrew  to  indicate  that  a  female  deity 
is  intended.  As  Paul  prefixes  the  feminine  article,  it  may  be 
explained  either  by  supposing  the  word  for  image  to  be  under- 
stood, as  our  translators  have  done  and  read,  "  Who  have  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal;"  or  by  taking  the  word 
as  of  the  common  gender,  and  used  as  the  name  of  both  a  male 
and  female  deity.  These  false  gods  were  either  the  sun  and 
moon,  or  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Venus.*  In  1  Kings  19:  IS, 
the  passage  quoted  by  the  apostle,  the  word  is  masculine,  as  is 
evident  from  the  last  clause  in  the  verse,  "  All  the  knees  which 
have  not  bowed  unto  Baal,  and  every  mouth  which  hath  not 
kissed  him."  Tholuck  thinks  the  feminine  form  is  used  con- 
temptuously.! 

(5)  Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a  rem- 
nant according  to  the  election  of  grace.  As,  in  the  days  of 
Elias,  there  was  a  number  which,  although  small  in  comparison 
with  the  whole  nation,  was  still  much  greater  than  appeared  to 
the  eye  of  sense,  so  at  the  present  time,  amidst  the  general  de- 
fection of  the  Jews,  and  their  consequent  rejection  as  a  people, 
there  is  a  remnant  graciously  chosen  of  God,  who  are  not  cast 
off.  The  phrase  election  of  grace,  agreeably  to  the  familiar 
scriptural   idiom,   means  gracious   election.      Gracious,  not 

*  See  Gesenius,  Hebrew  Lexicon  on  the  words  Baal  and  Bel.  And  also  his 
Commentar  iiber  den  Jesaia,  vol.  3.    Zweyte  Bcylage,  p.  327. 

■\  He  refers  to  a  remark  of  Jerome  on  Hosea  10 :  .5,  who  says  tliat  the  form 
r\lSji'  is  used  ud  irnisioiicm.  He  remarks  further,  that  in  Aral'ic  tlic  feminine 
form  is  used  for  a  false  god,  and  by  the  Eabbins,  ruriSx  mR^.n»  false  gods. 

Foemmenum,  subaudito  sixo'vi,  ima^ini  Baal,  ud  contemtum,  luitilhcto,  vim. — 
Bengei. 


454  ROMANS  11:  1—10. 

merely  in  the  sense  of  kind,  but  gratuitous,  sovereign,  not 
founded  on  the  merits  of  the  persons  chosen,  hut  the  good 
pleasure  of  God.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  given  by  the 
apostle  himself  in  the  next  verse.  Remnant  according  to  the 
gracious  election  is  equivalent  to  remnant  gratuitously 
chosen;  see  eh.  9:  11,  and  vs.  21,  24  of  this  chapter.  Paul, 
therefore,  designs  to  teach  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  w^as 
not  total,  because  there  was  a  number  whom  God  had  chosen, 
who  remained  faithful,  and  constituted  the  true  Israel  or  elected 
people,  to  whom  the  promises  were  made. 

(6)  *Mnd  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works;  other- 
wise grace  is  no  more  grace.  This  verse  is  an  exegetical 
comment  on  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  one.  If  the  elec- 
tion spoken  of  be  of  grace,  it  is  not  founded  on  works,  for  the 
two  things  are  incompatible.  It  evidently  was,  in  the  apostle's 
view,  a  matter  of  importance  that  the  entire  freeness  of  the 
election  of  men  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the  Mes- 
siah's kingdom,  should  be  steadily  kept  in  view.  He  would 
not  otherwise  have  stopped  in  the  midst  of  his  discourse  to 
insist  so  much  on  this  idea.  This  verse  serves  to  illustrate  seve- 
ral declarations  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  chapter.  For 
example,  v.  11,  in  which,  as  here,  men  are  said  to  be  chosen 
in  a  sovereign  manner,  and  not  according  to  their  works. 
It  is  obvious  that  foreseen  works  are  as  much  excluded  as 
any  other.  For  a  choice  founded  upon  the  foresight  of  good 
works,  is  as  really  made  on  account  of  works  as  any  choice 
can  be,  and,  consequently,  is  not  of  grace,  in  the  sense  as- 
serted by  the  apostle.  In  the  second  place,  the  choice  which 
is  here  declared  to  be  so  entirely  gratuitous,  is  a  choice  to 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  This  is  evident  from  the  whole  con- 
text, and  especially  from  v.  7.  It  was  from  this  kingdom 
and  all  its  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  that  the  Jews,  as  a 
body,  were  rejected,  and  to  which  "the  remnant  according 
to  the  election  of  grace"  was  admitted.  The  election,  there- 
fore, spoken  of  in  the  ninth  chapter,  is  not  to  external  privileges 
merely. 

The  latter  part  of  tliis  verse  is  simply  the  converse  of  the 
former.  But  if  of  works  then  it  is  no  more  grace;  other- 
ivise  work  is  no  more  work.  If  founded  on  any  thing  in  us, 
it  is  not  founded  on  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  God.    If  the  one 


ROMANS  11:  1—10.  455 

be  affirmed,  the  other  is  denied.  This  latter  clause  is  left  out  of 
so  many  of  the  ancient  MSS.  and  versions,  and  passed  over  in 
silence  by  so  many  of  the  fathers,  that  the  majority  of  editors 
are  disposed  to  regard  it  as  spurious.  Internal  evidence,  and  a 
comparison  with  similar  passages,  as  Rom.  4:  4.  Eph.  2:  8,  9, 
are  rather  in  its  favour.* 

(7)  What  then?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he 
seekethfor:  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  &c.  This  verse 
is  by  many  pointed  differently,  and  read  thus,  "  What  then  ? 
Hath  not  Israel  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for?  nay.  but 
the  election  have,  &c."  The  sense  is  not  materially  different. 
The  apostle  evidently  designs  to  state  the  result  of  all  lie  had 
just  been  saying.  Israel,  as  a  body,  has  not  attained  the  bless- 
ing which  they  sought,  but  the  chosen  portion  of  them  have. 
The  rejection,  therefore,  is  not  total,  and  the  promises  of  God 
made  of  old  to  Israel,  which  contemplated  his  spiritual  people, 
have  not  been  broken.  It  is  clear,  from  the  whole  discourse, 
that  the  blessing  sought  by  the  Jews  was  justification,  accept- 
ance with  God  and  admission  into  his  kingdom;  see  ch.  10:  3. 
9:  30:  31.  This  it  is  which  they  failed  to  attain,  and  to  which 
the  election  were  admitted.  It  was  not,  therefore,  external 
advantages  merely  which  the  apostle  had  in  view.  The  election 
means  those  elected;  as  the  circumcision  means  those  who  are 
circumcised. 

Jind  the  rest  were  blinded.  The  verb  (s'7rw^aj5>jrfav)  rendered 
were  blinded  properly  means  in  its  ground  form,  to  harden, 
to  render  insensible,  and  is  so  translated  in  our  version,  Mark 
6:  52.  8:  17.  John  12:  40.  In  2  Cor.  3:  14,  the  only  other 
place  ia  which  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  rendered 
as  it  is  here.  It  is  used  in  reference  to  the  eyes  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  Job  17:  7,  "My  eyes  are  dim  by  reason  of  sorrow." 
Either  rendering,  therefore,  is  admissible,  though  the  former  is 
preferable  as  more  in  accordance  with  the  usual  meaning  of  the 


*  These  words  are  omitted  In  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  47,  a  prima  mami;  in 
the  Coptic,  Armenian,  Ethiopic  and  Vulgate  versions ;  by  several  of  the  Greek  and 
all  the  Latin  fathers.  They  are  considered  spurious  by  Ehasmis,  Mill,  Wet- 
STF.iN  and  GiuESBACH.  They  are  also  omitted  by  Lachmanx.  Tlicy  are  retiiineJ 
by  Bengel,  Knapp,  &c.  Their  omission  is  much  more  easily  accounted  for  than 
their  insertion ;  and  it  is  certainly  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  manner  to  state, 
affirmatively  and  negatively,  the  same  proposition. 


45G     .  ROMANS  11:  1—10. 

word,  and  with  Paul's  language  in  the  previous  chapters. 
"And  the  rest  were  hardened,"  that  is,  were  insensible  to  the 
truth  and  excellence  of  the  gospel,  and,  therefore,  disregard  its 
offers  and  its  claims.  They  were  abandoned  to  the  perverseness 
of  their  own  hearts  and  given  over  to  a  reprobate  mind. 

(8)  Jiccording  as  it  is  written^  God  hath  given  them  the 
spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  they  should  not  see,  ears  that  they 
should  not  hear.     This  passage,  as  is  the  case  with  ch.  9:  33,  is 
composed  of  several  found  in  different  places,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  Isaiah  6 :  9,  it  is  said,  "  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand 
not;  see  ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not;"  v.  10, "  Lest  they  see  with 
their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears."     Deut.  29:  4,  "Yet  the 
Lord  hath  not  given  you  an  heart  to  perceive,  and  eyes  to  see, 
and  ears  to  hear,  unto  this  day."     Isaiah  29:  10,  "  For  the  Lord 
hath  poured  out  upon  you,  the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath 
closed  your  eyes."     The  spirit,  and  to  some  extent,  the  lan- 
guage of  these  passages,  Paul   cites  in  support  of  his  present 
purpose.     They  are  in  part  descriptive  of  what  had  occurred  in 
the  times  of  the  prophet,  and  in  part  of  what  should  occur  in 
after  times,  and  are,  therefore,  quoted  in  reference  to  the  charac- 
ter and  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Christ;  (see  Matt. 
13:  14.)     The  import  of  such  citations  frequently  is,  that  what 
was  fulfilled  in  the  days  of  the  prophet  was  more  completely 
accomplished  at  the  time  referred  to  by  the  New  Testament 
writer.     So,  in  this  case,  it  was  more  fully  accomplished  at  this 
period  of  the  Jewish  history  than  at  any  other,  that  the  people 
were  blinded,  hardened  and  reprobated.  ■   And  this  the  ancient 
prophets  had  frequently  predicted  should  be  the  case.     These 
quotations  also  serve  to  show,  that  this  hardening,  and  conse- 
quent rejection  of  the  Jews,  was  an  event  which,  with  regard  to 
multitudes,   had   frequently   occurred    before,   and,   therefore, 
demonstrated  that  their  being  cast  away  militated  with  none  of 
the  divine  promises. 

God  hath  given  to  them.  In  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the 
Old  Testament,  Is.  29:  10,  it  is,  "The  Lord  hath  poured  upon 
you."  The  sense  remaining  the  same.  Something  more  in 
this  connexion  is  probably  intended  by  this  expression  than 
that  God  permitted  them  to  become  hardened  and  insensible  to 
divine  truth.  Here,  as  in  ch.  9:  18,  the  idea  probably  is,  that 
God  judicially  abandoned  them,  with  withdrawing  and  with- 


ROMANS  11:  1—10.  457 

holding  the  influences  of  his  Spirit,  and  giving  them  up  to  a 
reprobate  mind.  The  words  even  unto  this  day  may,  as  by 
our  translators,  be  connected  with  the  last  words  of  the  prece- 
ding verse,  '  The  rest  were  blinded  even  unto  this  day.'  Or 
they  may  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  quotation,  as  they  occur 
in  the  passage  in  Deut.  29:  4. 

(9,  10)  And  David  saith,  let  their  table  be  made  a  snare, 
and  a  trap,  &c.  &c.  This  quotation  is  from  Ps.  69:  22,  23. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Psalm  which  forbids  its  being  con- 
sidered as  a  prophetic  lamentation  of  the  Messiah  over  his 
afflictions,  and  a  denunciation  of  God's  judgments  upon  his 
enemies.  Verse  9,  "  The  zeal  of  thy  house  hath  eaten  me  up," 
and  V.  21,  "They  gave  me  vinegar  to  drink,"  are  else- 
where quoted  and  applied  to  Christ.  Viewed  in  this  light,  the 
Psalm  is  directly  applicable  to  the  apostle's  object,  as  it  contains 
a  prediction  of  the  judgments  which  should  befall  the  enemies 
of  Christ.  Let  their  table  be  is  only  another  and  a  more 
forcible  way  of  saying,  their  table  shall  be.  Is.  47:  5,  "  Sit  thou 
silent  and  get  thee  into  darkness,  0  daughter  of  the  Chaldeans," 
for  '  Thou  shalt  sit,  &c.'  And  so  in  a  multitude  of  cases  in  the 
prophetic  writings.  In  the  Psalm  indeed,  the  future  form  in 
the  Hebrew  is  used,  though  it  is  correctly  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint,  and  in  our  version  as  the  imperative,  in  these  pas- 
sages. The  judgments  here  denounced  are  expressed  in  figura- 
tive language.  The  sense  is,  their  blessings  shall  become  a 
curse,  blindness  and  weakness,  hardness  of  heart  and  misery 
shall  come  upon  them.  This  last  idea  is  forcibly  expressed  by 
a  reference  to  the  dimness  of  vision,  and  decrepitude  of  old  age; 
as  the  vigour  and  activity  of  youth  are  the  common  figure  for 
expressing  the  results  of  God's  favour. 

Even  if  the  Psalm  here  quoted  be  considered  as  refer- 
ring to  the  sorrows  and  the  enemies  of  the  sacred  writer  him- 
self, and  not  to  those  of  Christ,  it  would  still  be  pertinent 
to  the  apostle's  object.  The  enemies  of  the  Psalmist  were  the 
enemies  of  God;  the  evils  imprecated  upon  them  were  impre- 
cated on  them  as  such,  and  not  as  enemies  of  the  writer.  These 
denunciations  are  not  the  expression  of  the  desire  of  private  re- 
venge, but  of  the  just  and  certain  judgments  of  God.  And  as 
the  Psalmist  declared  how  the  enemies  of  God  should  be  treated, 
how  dim  their  eyes  should  become,  and  how  their  strength 

58 


458  ROMANS  11:  1—10. 

should  be  broken,  so,  Paul  says,  it  actually  occurs.  David  said, 
let  them  be  so  treated,  and  we  find  them,  says  the  apostle,  suf-  ' 
fering  these  very  judgments.  Paul,  therefore,  in  teaching  that 
the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  the  rejecters  and  crucifiers  of  the 
Son  of  God  were  blinded  and  cast  away,  taught  nothing  more 
than  had  already  been  experienced  in  various  portions  of  their 
history,  and  predicted  in  their  prophets. 

Doctri7ies. 

1.  The  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance.  The 
people  whom  God  had  chosen  for  himself,  he  preserved  amidst 
the  general  defection  of  their  countrymen,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  apparent  apostacy  of  a  church  or  community  from 
God,  is  not  a  certain  test  of  the  character  of  all  the  individuals 
of  which  it  may  be  composed.  In  the  midst  of  idolatrous 
Israel,  there  were  many  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  unto 
Baal.  Denunciations,  therefore,  should  not  be  made  too  gene- 
ral, vs.  2 — 4. 

3.  The  fidelity  of  men  in  times  of  general  declension  is  not 
to  be  ascribed  to  themselves,  but  to  the  grace  of  God.  Every 
remnant  of  faithful  men,  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace.  That  is,  they  arc  faithful,  because  graciously 
elected,  v.  5. 

4.  Election  is  not  founded  on  works,  nor  on  any  thing  in  its 
objects,  but  on  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God;  and  it  is  not  to 
church  privileges  merely,  but  to  all  the  blessings  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  vs.  6,  7. 

5.  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  nor  of  him  that  runneth. 
Israel,  with  all  their  zeal  for  the  attainment  of  salvation,  were 
not  successful,  while  those  whom  God  had  chosen  attained  the 
blessing,  v.  7. 

6.  Those  who  forsake  God,  are  forsaken  by  God.  In  leaving 
him,  they  leave  the  source  of  light,  feeling  and  happiness,  v.  7. 

7.  When  men  are  forsaken  of  God  all  their  powers  are  useless, 
and  all  their  blessings  become  curses.  Having  eyes,  they  see 
not,  and  their  table  is  a  snare,  vs.  8 — 10. 

Remarks. 
1.  As  in  the  times  of  the  greatest  defection,  there  arc  some 
who  remain  faithful,  and  as  in  Uic  midst  of  apparently  apostate        -^ 


ROMANS  11:  1—10.  459 

communities,  there  are  some  who  retain  tlieir  integrity,  we 
should  never  despair  of  tlie  church,  nor  he  too  ready  to  make 
intercession  against  Israel.  TJic  foundation  of  God  standeth 
sure  having  this  seal,  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his,  vs. 
1—4. 

2.  Those  only  are  safe  whom  the  Lord  keeps.  Those  who 
do  not  how  the  knee  to  Baal,  are  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace,  and  not  according  to  the  firmness  of  their 
own  purposes,  vs.  5,  6. 

3.  All  seeking  after  salvation  is  worse  than  useless,  unless 
properly  directed.  Those  who  are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a 
righteousness  of  their  own,  or  to  secure  the  favour  of  God  in 
any  way  by  their  own  doings,  are  beating  the  air.  Success  is 
to  be  obtained  only  by  submission  to  the  righteousness  of  God, 
V.  7. 

4.  As  the  fact  that  any  attain  the  blessing  of  God  is  to  be 
attributed  to  their  election,  there  is  no  room  for  self-complacency 
or  pride;  and  where  these  feelings  exist  and  are  cherished  in 
reference  to  this  subject,  they  are  evidence  that  we  are  not  of 
the  number  of  God's  chosen,  v.  7. 

5.  Men  should  feel  and  acknowledge  that  they  are  in  the 
hands  of  God;  that,  as  sinners,  they  have  forfeited  all  claim  to 
his  favour,  and  lost  the  power  to  obtain  it.  To  act  perseveringly 
as  though  either  of  these  truths  were  not  so,  is  to  set  ourselves 
in  opposition  to  God  and  his  plan  of  mercy,  and  is  the  very 
course  to  provoke  him  to  send  on  us  the  spirit  of  slumber. 
This  is  precisely  what  the  Jews  did,  vs.  7,  8. 

6.  Men  are  commonly  ruined  by  the  things  in  which  they 
put  their  trust  or  take  most  delight.  The  whole  Mosaic  system, 
with  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  was  the  ground  of  confidence 
and  boasting  to  the  Jews,  and  it  was  the  cause  of  their  destruc- 
tion. So,  in  our  day,  those  who  take  refuge  in  some  ecclesias- 
tical organization  instead  of  Christ,  will  find  what  they  expected 
would  prove  their  salvation,  to  be  their  ruin.  So,  too,  all  mis- 
improved  or  perverted  blessings  are  made  the  severest  curses, 
vs.  9,  10. 


460  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

CHAP.  11:  11—36. 

,^nali/sis. 

As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  total,  so  neither  is  it 
final.  They  have  not  so  fallen  as  to  be  hopelessly  prostrated. 
First,  God  did  not  design  to  cast  away  his  people  entirely,  but, 
by  their  rejection,  in  the  first  place,  to  fixcilitate  the  progress  of 
the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  and  ultimately  to  make  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles  the  means  of  converting  the  Jews,  v.  11. 
The  latter  event  is  in  itself  desirable  and  probable.  1.  Because 
if  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  a  source  of  blessing,  much 
more  will  their  restoration  be  the  means  of  good,  vs.  12,  15. 
(The  verses  13,  14,  are  a  passing  remark  on  the  motive  which 
influenced  the  apostle  in  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.)  2.  Be- 
cause it  was  included  and  contemplated  in  the  original  elec- 
tion of  the  Jewish  nation.  If  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the 
branches,  v.  16. 

The  breaking  ofi'  and  rejection  of  some  of  the  original 
branches,  and  the  introduction  of  others  of  a  different  origin, 
is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine;  and  should  lead  the  Gen- 
tiles to  exercise  humility  and  fear,  and  not  boasting  or  exulta- 
tion, vs.  17 — 22.  As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  a  punish- 
ment of  their  unblief,  and  not  the  expression  of  God's  ultimate 
purpose  respecting  them,  it  is,  as  intimated  in  v.  16,  more  pro- 
bable that  God  should  restore  the  Jews,  than  that  he  should 
have  called  the  Gentiles,  vs.  23,  24. 

This  event,  thus  desirable  and  probable,  God  has  determined 
to  accomplish,  vs.  25,  26.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
privileges  of  God's  people  is  included  in  the  ancient  predic- 
tions and  promises  made  respecting  them,  vs.  26,  27.  Though 
now,  therefore,  they  are  treated  as  enemies,  they  shall  hereafter 
be  treated  as  friends,  v.  28.  For  tlic  purposes  of  God  do  not 
alter;  as  his  covenant  contemplated  the  restoration  of  his  an- 
cient people,  that  event  cannot  fail  to  come  to  pass,  v.  29.  The 
plan  of  God,  therefore,  contemplated  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  temporary  rejection  and  final  restoration  of  the  Jews, 
vs.  30—32. 

How  adorable  the  wisdom  of  God  manifested  in  the  plan  and 
conduct  of  the  work  of  redemption !     Of  him,  through  him,  and 


ROMANS  11:  ll—SG.  4GI 

to  him,  are  all  things;  to  whom  he  glory  for  ever.     Amen, 
vs.  33—36. 

Commentary. 

(11)  I  say  then  have  they  stumbled  that  they  should  fall? 
God  forbid,  &c.  This  verse  begins  with  the  same  formula  as 
the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,  and  for  the  same  reason.  As  there 
the  apostle  wished  to  have  it  understood  that  the  rejection  of 
God's  ancient  people  was  not  entire,  so  here  he  teaches  that 
this  rejection  is  not  final.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Averse 
seems  evident,  1.  From  the  comparative  force  of  the  words 
stumble  and  fall.  As  the  latter  is  a  much  stronger  term  than 
the  former,  it  seems  plain  that  Paul  designed  it  should  here  be 
taken  emphatically,  as  expressing  irrevocable  ruin  in  oppo- 
position  to  that  which  is  temporary.  The  Jews  have  stumbled, 
but  they  are  not  prostrated.  2.  From  the  context;  all  that 
follows  being  designed  to  prove  that  the  fall  of  the  Jews  w'as  not 
final.  This  is  indeed  intimated  in  this  very  verse,  in  which  it 
is  implied  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  would  lead  to  the 
ultimate  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  word  (•^i'tfwtriv)  rendered 
should  fall  is  used  here  as  elsewhere  to  mean  should  perish, 
become  miserable,  Heb.  4:  11.  The  word  that  may  express 
either  the  design  or  result,  'They  have  not  stumbled  in  order 
that  they  might  fall,'  or  '  They  have  not  stumbled  so  as  utterly 
to  fall.'  The  former  is  commonly  preferred  here  by  those  who 
suppose  the  verse  to  mean  that  the  object  of  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  was  not  to  render  them  miserable,  but  to  do  the  Gentiles 
good.  '  Has  God  caused  or  allowed  them  to  stumble,  for  the 
sake  of  punishing  them  ?  By  no  means,  but,  &c.'  This  inter- 
pretation, which  is  adopted  by  Flatt,  Tholuck,  &c.,  although  it 
is  suited  to  the  verse,  considered  separately,  is  not  so  agreeable 
to  the  context,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle.  It  is  not  his 
object  in  what  follows,  to  prove  that  God  had  not  cast  off"  his 
people  for  the  simple  purpose  of  causing  them  to  suffer,  but  to 
show  that  their  rejection  was  not  final. 

But  through  their  fall  salvation  has  come  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  stumbling  of  the  Jews  was  not  attended  with  the 
result  of  their  utter  and  final  ruin,  but  w\ns  the  occasion  of 
facilitating  the  progress  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  It 
was,  therefore,  not  designed  to  lead  to  the  former,  but  to  the 


462  ROMANS  11:  11— 3C. 

latter  result.  From  this  very  design  it  is  probable  that  they 
shall  be  finally  restored,  because  the  natural  effect  of  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles  is  to  provoke  the  emulation  of  the 
Jews.  That  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  on  the  part  of  the  Jews 
was  the  means  of  its  wider  and  more  rapid  spread  among  the 
Gentiles,  seems  to  be  clearly  intimated  in  several  passages  of 
the  New  Testament.  ''  It  was  necessary,"  Paul  says  to  the 
Jews,  "  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to 
you;  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves 
unworthy  of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles,"  Acts 
13:  46.  And  in  Acts  28:  28,  after  saying  that  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  was  fulfilled  in  their  unbelief,  he  adds,  "  Be  it  known, 
therefore,  unto  you  that  the  salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto  the 
them."  The  Jews,  even  those  who  were  professors  of  Chris- 
tianity, were,  in  the  first  i)lace,  very  slow  to  allow  the  gospel 
to  be  prcaclicd  to  the  Gentiles;  and  in  the  second,  they  appear 
almost  uniformly  to  have  desired  to  clog  the  gospel  with  the 
ceremonial  observances  of  the  law.  This  was  one  of  the  greatest 
hinderances  to  the  progress  of  tlie  cause  of  Christ  during  the 
apostolic  age,  and  would,  in  all  human  probability,  have  been  a 
thousand  fold  greater,  had  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  embraced  the 
Cliristian  faith.  On  both  of  these  accounts  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  was  incidentally  a  means  of  facilitating  the  progress  of 
the  gospel.  Besides  this,  the  punishment  which  befell  them 
on  account  of  tlicir  unbelief,  involving  the  destruction  of  their 
nation  and  power,  of  course  prevented  their  being  able  to  forbid 
the  general  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  they  earnestly  de- 
sired to  accom])lish.  1  Thess.  2:  15,  14,  "They  please  not 
God  and  arc  contrary  to  all  men;  forbidding  us  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles  that  they  might  be  saved." 

For  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy.  As  the  result  and  design 
of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles, 
so  the  conversion  of  the  latter  was  designed  to  bring  about  the 
restoration  of  tlie  former.  The  Gentiles  are  saved  in  order  to 
provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy.  That  is,  this  is  one  of  the  many 
benevolent  purposes  which  God  designed  to  accomplish  by  that 
event.  This  last  clause  serves  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
apostle  in  the  former  j)art  of  the  verse.  He  shows  that  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  intended  to  result  in  their  being 
finally  cast  away,  but  to  secure  the  more  rapid  progress  of  the 


ROMANS  11:  11— 3G.  463 

gospel  among  the  heathen,  in  order  that  their  conversion  might 
re-act  upon  the  Jews,  and  he  the  means  of  bringing  all,  at  last, 
within  the  fold  of  the  Redeemer. 

(12)  Now  if  the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches  of  the  world, 
and  the  diminishing  of  them  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles,  how 
much  more  their  fulness  ?  Although  there  is  considerable 
difficulty  in  fixing  the  precise  sense  of  the  several  clauses  of 
this  verse,  its  general  meaning  seems  sufficiently  obvious.  '  If 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  good 
to  the  world,  how  much  more  may  be  expected  from  their 
restoration.'  In  this  view  it  bears  directly  upon  the  apostle's 
object,  which,  in  the  first  place,  is  to  show  that  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews  is  a  probable  and  desirable  event.  There  is  in  the 
verse  a  twofold  annunciation  of  the  same  idea.  In  the  first,  the 
sentence  is  incomplete.  '  If  the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches  of 
the  world,  how  much  more  their  recovery  ?  if  their  diminish- 
ing, how  much  more  their  fulness  ?'*  The  principal  difficulty 
in  this  passage  results  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  {'l]T7r\^a 
and  *X?]^w(xa)  rendered  diininishing  and  fulness.  The  former 
may  meaxv  fewness  or  inferiority,  a  condition  ivorse  than  that 
of  others,  or  worse  than  a  former  one.  Those  who  adopt 
the  former  of  these  senses  understand  the  verse  thus, '  If  the 
few  Jews,  who  have  been  converted,  have  been  such  an  advan- 
tage to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  will  the  great  multitude 
of  them,  when  brought  to  Christ,  be  a  source  of  blessing.'  But 
to  this  interpretation  it  may  be  objected,  1.  The  w^ord  has 
rarely  the  meaning  here  assigned  to  it.  Passow  gives  it  no  such 
signification  in  his  Lexicon.  The  cognate  verb  signifies  /  am 
inferior  in  strength  or  condition  to  any  one.  2  Peter  2:  19. 
2  Cor.  12:  13.  The  adjective  means  inferior,  worse;  1  Cor. 
11 :  17,  "  Ye  come  together  not  for  the  better  but  for  the  worse." 
The  only  place  in  which  the  word  here  used  occurs  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  1  Cor.  6:7,"  There  is  utterly  a  fault 
among  you,"  or  as  it  might  be  rendered, '  It  is  an  injury  to 
you.'  Such  too  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; Is.  31:  8,  "His  young  men  shall  be  discomfited,"  which 
expresses  the  sense  of  the  original,  and  so  does  the  Septuagint, 

♦   Eadem  scntentia  duplici  formula   exprimitur.     In  priori  deest  apodosis,  qua 
demum  addita  aceiuate  membra  invicciu  respondent,  &c. — Koprt. 


464  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

which  employs  the  word  used  by  the  apostle,  '  His  young  men 
shall  be  brouoht  into  an  inferior  condition,'  i.  e.  shall  be  con- 
quered. 2.  This  interpretation  does  not  suit  the  context.  Paul 
does  not  say  that  the  conversion  of  the  few  Jews  who  had  be- 
come Christians,  had  been  the  occasion  of  good  to  the  Gentiles, 
but  the  rejection  of  the  great  body  of  the  nation.  3.  It  does  not 
at  all  suit  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  The  fall  of  them 
answers  to  and  explains  the  diminishing  of  them.  As  the 
former  clause  cannot  receive  the  interpretation  objected  to, 
neither  can  the  latter. 

The  word  rendered  fulness  has  various  senses  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  properly  means  that  with  which  any  thing  is 
filled,  as  in  the  frequent  phrase  the  fulness  of  the  earth,  or 
of  the  sea,  &c.  ^o  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  all  that  is  in  God, 
the  plenitude  of  Deity.  It  then  naturally  is  used  for  the 
fulness  or  abundance  of  blessings  that  is  in  any  one.  John 
1:  16,  "Of  his  fulness  have  all  we  received;"  Eph.  3:  19, 
"  That  ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God."  Thirdly, 
it  means  abundance,  multitude,  especially  when  followed  by  a 
genitive  expressing  the  particulars  of  which  the  multitude  con- 
sists, as  fulness  of  the  Gentiles,  i.  e.  the  multitude  of  the 
Gentiles,  v.  25  of  this  chapter.  It  also  means  the  complement 
or  supple7nent  of  any  thing,  the  remaining  part;  see  JNIatt. 
.9:  16.  So  in  Eph.  1:  33,  the  church  may  be  called  the  ful- 
ness of  Christ  because  he  is  the  head,  the  church  the  residue, 
or  complement,  by  which  the  mystical  body  is  completed.  Of 
these  several  meanings,  Storr  selects  the  last,  and  explains  the 
verse  thus, 'If  the  ruin  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  has  been  a 
source  of  blessing  to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  shall  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  nation,  i.  e.  those  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity, be  the  means  of  good.'  But,  1.  This  interpretation 
destroys  the  obvious  antitliesis  of  the  sentence;  "  the  remaining 
part"  does  not  answer  to  the  word  rendered  riiin,  as  it  obviously 
should  do.  2.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  context,  which 
is  not  designed  so  much  to  set  forth  the  usefulness  of  the  Jews 
then  converted,  as  to  declare  the  blessings  likely  to  be  conse- 
quent on  the  final  conversion  of  the  whole  nation.  3.  A  com- 
parison of  thi.s,  with  the  15th  vcisc,  is  unfavourable  to  this 
interpretation.  Tliosc  verses  evidently  express  the  same  idea, 
and,  therefore,  illustrate  each  other.     '  If  the  casting  away  of 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  465 

them  be  the  occasion  of  reconciling  the  world,  what  will  the 
receiving  of  them  be,  &c.'  v.  15. 

The  common  interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred.  '  If 
the  injury  or  ruin  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  good 
to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  shall  their  full  restoration  or 
blessedness  be  ?'  According  to  this  view,  the  word  rendered 
fulness  means  abundance,  i.  e.  abundance  of  blessings.  This 
agrees  with  the  antithesis,  '  If  the  fall,  then  the  recovery;  if  the 
ruin,  then  the  blessedness,  &c.'  2.  It  suits  the  context  and  the 
design  of  the  apostle,  and  3.  It  i?  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
obviously  parallel  passage  in  the  15th  verse  just  quoted. 

(13)  For  I  speak  to  you  Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am,  the 
apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  This  and  the  following  verse,  without 
being  strictly  a  parenthesis,  contain  a  transient  remark  relating 
to  the  apostle's  own  feelings  and  mode  of  acting  in  reference  to 
the  subject  in  hand.  This  passage  is  connected  with  the  last 
clause  of  the  preceding  verse,  in  which  Paul  had  said  that  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  adapted  and  designed  to  bring 
about  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  These  two  events,  instead  of 
being  at  all  inconsistent,  were  intimately  related,  so  that  both 
ought  to  be  kept  constantly  in  view,  and  all  efforts  to  promote 
the  former  had  a  bearing  on  the  accomplishment  of  the  latter. 
This  being  the  case,  the  Gentiles  ought  to  consider  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews  as  in  no  respect  inimical  to  their  interests,  but 
as  on  every  account  most  desirable.  Paul,  therefore,  says,  that 
what  he  had  just  stated  in  reference  to  the  effect  on  the  Jews, 
of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  he  designed  specially  for  the 
latter;  he  wished  them  to  consider  that  fact,  as  it  would  prevent 
any  unkind  feelings  towards  the  Jews.  He  had  the  better  right 
thus  to  speak,  as  to  him  especially,  "  the  gospel  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision  had  been  committed."  He  himself,  in  all  he  did  to 
secure  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  or  to  render  his  office  suc- 
cessful, had  an  eye  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  word 
(5o|a^w)  rendered  /  magnify,  means  first  to  praise,  to  estimate 
and  speak  highly  of  a  thing;  secondly,  to  render  glorious, 
as  ch.  8:  30,  "Whom  he  justifies  them  he  also  glorifies;"  and 
so  in  a  multitude  of  cases.  Either  sense  of  the  word  suits  this 
passage.  The  latter,  however,  is  much  better  adapted  to  the 
following  verse,  and,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred,  '  I  endeavour 
to  render  my  office  glorious  by  bringing  as  many  Gentiles  as 

59 


466  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

possible  into  the  Redeemer's  kingdom;  if  so  be  it  may  provoke 
and  arouse  my  countrymen.'*  The  object  of  the  apostle,  there- 
fore, in  these  verses,  is  to  declare  that  he  always  acted  under 
the  influence  of  the  truth  announced  at  the  close  of  the  12th 
verse.  He  endeavoured  to  make  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
a  means  of  good  to  the  Jews. 

(14)  If  by  any  means  I  may  provoke  to  emulation,  them 
which  are  my  flesh,  and  might  save  som.e  of  them..  This  is 
the  reason  (of  course  one  among  many)  why  Paul  desired  the 
conversion  of  tlie  Gentiles.  If  the  two  events,  the  salvation  of 
both  classes  were  intimately  related,  there  was  no  ground  of 
jealousy  on  either  part.  The  Gentiles  need  not  fear  that  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  would  be  injurious  to  them,  as  though  the 
happiness  of  one  class  were  incompatible  with  that  of  the  other. 

(15)  For  if  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  7'econciling 
of  the  ivorld,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  but  life 
from,  the  dead?  Although  Paul  here  returns  to  the  sentiment 
of  the  12th  verse,  this  passage  is  logically  connected  with  the 
preceding.  The  apostle  had  said,  that  even  in  labouring  for  the 
Gentiles,  he  had  in  view  the  salvation  of  the  Jews,  for  if  their 
rejection  had  occasioned  so  much  good,  how  desirable  must  be 
their  restoration.  If  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  recon- 
ciling of  the  world.  The  reconciliation  here  spoken  of  is  that 
which  Paul  so  fully  describes  in  Eph.  2:  11 — 22.  A  recon- 
ciliation by  which  those  who  were  aliens  and  strangers  have 
been  brought  nigh;  reconciled  at  once  to  the  church,  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  and  to  God  himself,  "  by  the  blood  of 
Christ."  This  event  has  been  facilitated,  as  remarked  above, 
by  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  what  will  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  then  be,  but  life  from  the  dead  7"^     That  is,  it  will  be  a 

*  Sic  gentes  alloquitur:  Quum  siin  vobis  peculiariter  destinatus  apostolus 
ideoque  salutem  vcstram  inihi  commissam  singulari  quodam  studio  debeam  procu- 
rare,  et  quasi  rebus  omnibus  omissis  unum  illud  agere  :  officio  tamen  meo  fideliter 
fungar,  si  quos  e  mca  gcnte  Cliristo  lucrifeccro  :  idcjiic  crit  in  gloriam  ministerii  niei, 
atque  adeo  in  vcstrum  bonum. — Caivin. 

•j-  Quum  ergo  vitani  ex  morte,  ct  lucem  ox  tencbris  mirabiliter  Deus  eduxerit, 
multo  niagis  spcranduni  esse  ratiocinatur,  ut  rrsuncctio  popiili  quasi  emortui  gentes 
vivificct. — Calvin. 

Totius  generis  humani  sivc  mundi  conversio  coniitabitur  conversionem  Israelis. — 

BXSGEL. 

Quum  ad  cvangoliuni  accessciint  etiani  Judaci,  mundus  quasi  reviviscat. — Beza. 


ROMANS  11:  11— 3(i.  467 

most  glorious  event;  as  though  a  new  world  had  risen;  not 
only  glorious  in  itself,  but  in  tlie  highest  degree  beneficial 
for  the  Gentiles.  De  Brais  and  many  others  suppose  that  the 
apostle  refers  to  the  future  declension  of  the  Gentile  church, 
from  which  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  shall  be  the  means  of 
arousing  them.  Of  such  an  allusion,  however,  there  is  no  inti- 
mation in  the  text.  The  most  common  and  natural  interpreta- 
tion is  that  which  considers  the  latter  clause  as  merely  a 
figurative  expression  of  a  joyful  and  desirable  event.  The 
conversion  of  the  Jews  will  be  attended  with  the  most  glorious 
consequences  for  the  whole  world. 

(16)  For  if  the  first  fruits  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy, 
and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  also  are  the  branches.  Under  two 
striking  and  appropriate  figures,  the  apostle  expresses  the  gene- 
ral idea, '  If  one  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  is  holy,  so  also 
is  the  other.'  With  regard  to  this  interesting  passage,  the  first 
point  to  be  settled  is  the  allusion  in  the  figurative  expression  in 
the  first  clause.  The  Jews  were  commanded  to  offer  a  certain 
portion  of  all  the  productions  of  the  earth  to  God,  as  an  expres- 
sion of  gratitude  and  acknowledgement  of  dependence.  This 
offering,  called  the  first  fruits,  was  to  be  made,  first,  from  the 
productions  in  their  natural  state  (Ex.  23:  19);  and,  secondly, 
from  the  meal,  wine,  oil  and  dough,  as  prepared  for  use.  Num. 
15:  20,  "  Of  the  first  of  your  dough  ye  shall  give  unto  the  Lord 
a  heave  offering  in  all  your  generations;"  Nehemiah  10:  37. 
Deut.  IS:  14.  If  the  allusion  of  the  apostle  is  to  the  former  of 
these  offerings,  then  the  first  fruits  must  refer  to  a  portion  of 
the  harvest  or  vintage  presented  to  God,  and  the  lump  to  the 
residue  of  the  grain  or  grapes.  If  the  allusion  be  to  the  second, 
then  the  first  frriits  mean  the  portion  of  dough  offered  to  God, 
and  the  lu77ip  the  residue  of  the  mass.  The  latter  is  undoubt- 
edly most  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  {cpo^afia) 
used  by  the  apostle,  which  can  hardly  be  understood  as  refer- 
ring to  heaps  of  grain,  or  other  productions  of  the  earth.  In 
either  case,  however,  the  purport  of  the  illustration  is  the  same. 

A  second  question  is,  who  are  intended  by  the  first  fruits  and 
the  root,  and  by  the  lump  and  the  branches,  in  these  two 
figures?  With  respect  to  this  question,  the  following  are  the 
most  common  and  plausible  answers.  I.  The  first  fruits  are 
understood  to  mean  the  Jews  first  converted  to  the  Christian 


468  ROMANS  11:  11—36. 

faith,  who  became,  as  it  were,  the  root  of  the  Christian  church. 
According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  apostle  designs  to 
say,  '  Since  the  first  converts  to  the  gospel  were  Jews,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  nation,  as  such,  is  not  cast  off  by  God;  as  a  portion 
of  them  is  holy  (or  have  been  accepted  of  God),  so  may  the 
residue  be.'  2.  By  the  first  fruits  and  the  root  may  be  under- 
stood the  patriarchs,  the  forefathers  of  the  Jews;  and  by  the 
lump  and  the  branches,  the  residue  of  the  nation  or  the  Jews  as 
a  people.  That  this  latter  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage 
seems  very  evident.  1.  Because  this  interpretation  alone  pre- 
serves the  propriety  of  the  figure.  How  can  the  unconverted 
Jews  or  the  Jewish  nation  be  called  the  branches  of  the  portion 
that  became  followers  of  Christ  ?  The  Gentile  Christians  might 
be  so  called,  but  not  the  Jewish  people,  as  such.  On  the  other 
hand,  nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  call  the  ancestors  the  root, 
and  their  descendants  the  branches.  2.  This  interpretation  best 
suits  the  design  of  the  apostle.  He  wishes  to  show  that  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews,  which  he  had  declared  to  be  so  desirable 
for  the  Gentiles,  was  a  probable  event.  He  jiroves  this  by  re- 
ferring to  the  relation  of  their  ancestors  to  God.  If  they  were 
the  peculiar  people  of  God,  their  descendants  may  be  regarded 
as  his  also,  since  the  covenant  was  not  with  Abraham  only,  but 
also  with  his  seed.  3.  This  is  the  apostle's  own  explanation  in 
V.  28,  where  the  unconverted  Jews,  or  Hebrew  nation,  as  such, 
are  said  to  be  "  beloved  for  the  father's  sake."  4.  This  inter- 
pretation alone  can  be  consistently  carried  through  the  following 
verses.  The  Gentile  Christians  are  not  said  (v.  17)  to  be  grafted 
into  the  stock  of  the  converted  Jews,  but  as  branches  with 
them,  they  are  united  to  a  common  stock.  And  the  stock  into 
which  the  branches,  now  broken  off,  are  to  be  again  grafted,  is 
not  the  Jewish  part  of  the  Christian  church,  but  the  original 
family  or  household  of  God. 

The  word  {uywg)  rendered  Ao/y,  which  properly  means  sepa- 
rated, is  used  in  two  general  senses  in  the  scriptures,  1.  Conse- 
crated; 2.  Pure.  In  the  former  of  these,  it  is  applied,  times 
without  number,  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  persons,  places  and 
things  considered  as  peculiarly  devoted  to  the  service  of  God. 
So  the  whole  Jewish  people,  without  reference  to  their  moral 
character,  are  called  a  holy  people.  So,  too,  the  temple,  taber- 
nacle and  all  their  contents  were  called  holy,  &c.     The  use  of 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  469 

the  word  in  this  sense,  in  reference  to  places  and  things,  is  not 
unfrequent  in  the  New  Testament.  Matt.  4:  5,  where  Jerusa- 
lem is  called  the  "holy  city;"  see  Matt.  7:  G.  24:  15.  27:  53,  and 
often.  It  is,  however,  rarely  so  used  in  relation  to  persons.  In 
the  vast  majority  of  instances,  when  thus  applied,  it  means 
morally  pure;  yet,  in  some  cases,  it  signifies  devoted  to  God. 
Luke  2:23,  "Every  male  that  openeth  the  womh  shall  he 
called  holy  unto  the  Lord."  Perhaps,  too,  in  the  expressions 
"the  holy  prophets,"  Luke  1:  70,  and  "  holy  apostles,"  Eph. 
3:  5,  the  reference  is  rather  to  their  relation  to  God  as  persons 
devoted  to  his  service,  than  to  their  moral  character.  In  1  Cor. 
7:  14,  the  children  of  professing  Christians  are  called  "holy," 
not  in  reference  to  their  moral  condition,  but  their  relation  to 
the  church.  In  like  manner,  in  this  passage,  the  Jews,  as  a 
people,  are  called  holy,  because  peculiarly  consecrated  to  God, 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  for  his  service.* 

The  connexion  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding,  its  import 
and  bearing  on  the  apostle's  object  is  therefore  clear.  The  res- 
toration of  the  Jews,  which  will  be  attended  with  such  benefi- 
cial results  for  the  whole  world,  is  to  be  expected,  because  of 
their  peculiar  relation  to  God  as  his  chosen  people.  God,  in 
selecting  the  Hebrew  patriarchs  and  setting  them  apart  for  his 
service,  had  reference  to  their  descendants  as  well  as  to  them- 
selves, and  designed  that  the  Jews  as  a  people  should,  to  the 
latest  generations,  be  specially  devoted  to  himself.  They  stand 
now,  therefore,  and  ever  have  stood,  in  a  relation  to  God,  wliioh 
no  other  nation  ever  has  sustained;  and,  in  consequence  of  this 
relation,  their  restoration  to  the  divine  favour  is  an  event  in 
itself  probable,  and  one,  which  Paul  afterwards  teaches  (v.  25), 
God  has  determined  to  accomplish. 

(17 — 24)  The  objectof  these  verses  is  to  make  such  an  apph- 
cation  of  the  truths  which  Paul  had  just  taught  as  shoukl  pre- 
vent any  feeling  of  exultation  or  triumph  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  over  the  Jews.  It  is  true  that  the  Jews  have  been 
partially  rejected  from  the  church  of  God,  that  the  Gentiles 
have  been  introduced  into  it,  and  that  the  Jews  are  ultimately 

«  Non  est  mirum,  si  in  patre  suo  Judaci  sanctificati  sint.  Nihil  hie  crit  difficulta- 
tis,  si  sanctitatem  intelHgas  nihil  esse  ahiul,  quam  spiritualem  generis  nohilitat<>m, 
et  earn  quidem  non  propriam  naturae,  sed  quae  ex  foedere  manabat.  «  .  »  Elccti 
populi  dignitas,  proprie  loquendo,  supcrnaturale  privilcgium  est.— Calvin. 


470  ROMANS  11:  11— 3G. 

to  be  restored;  these  things,  however,  afford  no  ground  of  boast- 
ing to  the  Gentiles,  but  rather  cause  of  thankfulness  and  caution. 
Paul  illustrates  these  truths  by  a  very  appropriate  figure. 

(17)  Jind  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off',  and  thou, 
being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  &c. 
The  purport  of  this  passage  is  plain.  Some  of  the  Jews  were 
broken  off  and  rejected;  the  Gentiles,  though  apparently  little 
susceptible  of  such  a  blessing,  were  introduced  into  the  church, 
and  made  to  partake  of  all  its  peculiar  and  precious  privileges. 
The  Jewish  church  is  compared  to  the  olive  tree,  one  of  the 
most  durable,  productive  and  valuable  of  the  productions  of  the 
earth,  because  it  was  highly  favoured,  and,  therefore,  valued  in 
the  sight  of  God.  The  Gentiles  are  compared  to  the  wild 
olive,  one  of  the  most  worthless  of  trees,  to  express  the  degra- 
dation of  their  state,  considered  as  estranged  from  God.  As  it 
is  customary  to  engraft  good  scions  on  inferior  stocks,  the  na- 
ture of  the  product  bring  determined  by  the  graft  and  not  the 
root,  it  has  been  thought  that  the  illustration  of  the  apostle 
is  not  very  apposite.  But  the  difficulty  may  result  from  pressing 
the  comparison  too  far.  The  idea  may  be  simply  this,  '  as  the 
scion  of  one  tree  is  engrafted  into  another,  and  has  no  indepen- 
dent life,  but  derives  all  its  vigour  from  the  root,  so  the  Gentiles 
are  introduced  among  the  people  of  God,  not  to  confer  but  to 
receive  good.'  It  is  however  said,  on  the  authority  of  ancient 
writers  and  of  modern  travellers,  to  have  been  not  unusual  to 
graft  the  wild  on  the  cultivated  olive.'* 

It  is  plain  from  this  verse  that  the  root  in  this  passage  cannot 
be  the  early  converts  from  among  tlie  Jews,  but  the  ancient 
covenant  people  of  God.  The  ancient  theocracy  was  merged 
in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The  latter  is  but  an  enlargement 
and  elevation  of  the  former.  There  has,  therefore,  never  been 
other  than  one  family  of  God  on  earth,  existing  under  different 
institutions,  and  enjoying  different  degrees  of  light  and  favour. 
This  family  was  composed  of  old  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
and  their  descendants.   At  the  advent  its  name  and  circumstances 

•  Columella  de  lie  i-u.i/icn,  Y.  9.  Solriit  torcl-.rari  oleac  laetac,  in  foramen 
talea  viridis  oleastri  tlcinittitur,  ct  sic  vclut  inita  arbor  foocuudo  scniine  J'ertilior 
exstat. 

PALLAnrrs  de  lie  rustira,  XIV.  .5.3.  Foecundat  stcrilis  pinguis  oloaster  olivas, 
ct  quae  iion  novit  munera  fcrre  docet. 


ROMANS  11:  11— 36.  471 

were  changed,  many  of  its  old  nicnibers  were  cast  out,  and 
others  introduced,  but  it  is  the  same  family  still.  Or,  to  return 
to  the  apostle's  illustration,  it  is  the  same  tree,  some  of  the 
branches  only  being  changed. 

(18)  Boast  not  thyself  against  the  branches.  But  if 
thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  The 
truth  which  the  apostle  had  just  taught,  that  the  Jews  were  the 
channel  of  blessings  to  the  Gentiles,  and  not  the  reverse,  was 
adapted  to  prevent  all  ungenerous  and  self-confident  exultation 
of  the  latter  over  the  former. 

(19)  Thou  wilt  say  then,  the  branches  ivere  broken  ojf, 
that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  The  Gentiles  are  not  authorised 
to  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  rejected  and  they 
chosen,  that  this  occurred  on  the  2;round  of  their  beins:  in 
themselves  better  than  the  Jews.  The  true  reason  of  this  dis- 
pensation is  assigned  in  the  next  verse. 

(20)  Well,  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  &c. 
The  fact  that  they  were  broken  off  is  admitted,  but  the  inference 
impliedly  drawn  by  the  Gentiles  is  denied.  It  was  not  for  any 
personal  considerations  that  the  one  was  rejected  and  the  other 
chosen.  The  Jews  were  rejected  because  they  rejected  the 
Saviour,  and  the  only  tenure  by  which  the  advantages  of  a  cove- 
nant relation  to  God  can  be  retained  is  faith.  The  Gentiles, 
therefore,  will  not  be  secure  because  Gentiles,  any  more  than 
the  Jews  were  safe,  because  Jews.  Instead  therefore  of  being 
high-minded,  they  should  fear. 

(21)  If  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed 
lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  The  Gentile  has  even  more  reason 
to  fear  than  the  Jew  had.  It  was  in  itself  far  more  probable 
that  God  would  spare  a  people  so  long  connected  with  him  in 
the  most  peculiar  manner,  than  that  he  should  spare  those  who 
had  no  such  claims  on  his  mercy.  The  idea  intended  to  be 
expressed  by  this  verse  probably  is,  that  the  Jews,  from  their 
relation  to  God,  were  more  likely  to  be  spared  than  the  Gentiles, 
inasmuch  as  God  is  accustomed  to  bear  long  with  the  recipients 
of  his  mercy  before  he  casts  them  ofl';  even  as  a  father  bears 
long  with  a  son  before  he  discards  him  and  adopts  another. 

(22)  Behold,  therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God; 
on  them  which  fell  severity;  but  on  thee  goodness.  The 
effect,  which  the  consideration  of  these  dispensations  of  God 


472  ROMANS  11:  11—36. 

should  produce,  is  gratitude  and  fear.  Gratitude,  in  view  of 
the  favour  which  we  Gentiles  have  received,  and  fear  lest  we 
should  be  cut  off,  for  our  security,  does  not  depend  upon  our 
now  enjoying  the  blessings  of  the  church  of  God,  but  is  de- 
pendent on  our  continuing  in  the  divine  goodness  or  favour 
(Rom.  3:  4.  Tit.  3:  4),  that  is,  on  our  doing  nothing  to  forfeit 
that  favour;  its  continuance  being  suspended  on  the  condition 
of  our  fidelity.  There  is  nothing  in  this  language  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  final  perseverance  of  believers,  even 
supposing  the  passage  to  refer  to  individuals;  for  it  is  very 
common  to  speak  thus  hypothetically,  and  say  that  an  event 
cannot,  or  will  not  come  to  pass,  unless  the  requisite  means  are 
employed,  when  the  occurrence  of  the  event  had  been  rendered 
certain  by  the  previous  purpose  and  promise  of  God;  see  Acts 
27:  31.  The  foundation  of  all  such  statements  is  the  simple 
truth,  that  he  who  purposed  the  end,  purposed  also  the  means; 
and  he  brings  about  the  end  by  securing  the  use  of  the  means; 
and  when  rational  agents  are  concerned,  he  secures  the  use  of  the 
means  by  rational  considerations  presented  to  their  minds,  and 
rendered  effectual  by  his  grace,  when  the  end  contemplated  is 
good.  This  passage,  however,  has  no  legitimate  bearing  on 
this  subject.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  the  connexion  of  individual 
believers  to  Christ,  which  he  had  abundantly  taught  in  ch.  8 
and  elsewhere  to  be  indissoluble,  but  of  the  relation  of  commu- 
nities to  the  church  and  its  various  privileges.  There  is  no 
promise  or  covenant  on  the  part  of  God  securing  to  the  Gen- 
tiles the  enjoyment  of  these  blessings  through  all  generations, 
any  more  than  there  was  any  such  promise  to  protect  the  Jews 
from  the  consequences  of  their  unbelief.  The  continuance  of 
these  favours  depends  on  the  conduct  of  each  successive  gene- 
ration. Paul,  therefore,  says  to  the  Gentile  that  he  must 
continue  in  the  divine  favour,  "otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be 
cut  off" 

(23)  Jlnd  they  also,  if  they  bide  not  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
grafted  in,  &c.  The  principle  which  the  apostle  had  just 
stated  as  applicable  to  the  Gentiles,  is  applicable  also  to  the 
Jews.  Neither  one  nor  the  other,  simply  because  Jew  or  Gen- 
tile, is  either  retained  in  the  church  or  excluded  from  it.  As 
the  one  continues  in  this  relation  to  God,  only  on  condition  of 
faith;  so  the  other  is  excluded  by  his  unbelief  alone.     Nothing 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  473 

but  unbelief  prevents  the  Jews  being  brought  back,  "•  for  God 
is  able  to  graff  them  in  again."*  That  is,  not  merely  has  God  the 
power  to  accomplish  this  result,  but  the  difficulty  or  impediment 
is  not  in  him,  but  solely  in  themselves.  There  is  no  inexorable 
purpose  in  the  divine  mind,  nor  any  insuperable  obstacle  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  which  forbids  their  restoration;  on 
the  contrary,  the  event  is,  in  itself  considered,  far  more  proba- 
ble than  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 

(24)  For  if  thou  ivert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree  which  is 
wild  by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into 
a  good  olive  tree;  how  much  more,  &c.  The  simple  meaning 
of  this  verse  is,  that  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  is,  in 
itself,  a  more  probable  event  than  the  introduction  of  tlie  Gen- 
tiles into  the  church  of  God.  This,  of  course,  supposes  that 
God  regarded  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  relation  to  him, 
with  peculiar  favour,  and  that  there  is  still  something  in  their 
relation  to  the  ancient  servants  of  God  and  his  covenant  with 
them,  which  causes  them  to  be  regarded  with  special  interest. 
As  men  look  upon  the  cliildren  of  their  early  friends  with 
kinder  feelings  than  on  the  cliildren  of  strangers,  God  refers  to 
this  fact  to  make  us  sensible  that  he  still  retains  purposes  of 
peculiar  mercy  towards  his  ancient  people.  The  restoration  of 
this  people,  therefore,  to  the  blessings  of  the  church  of  God  is 
far  from  being  an  improbable  event. 

(25)  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of  this 
mystery,  lest  ye  should  be  wise  in  your  own  conceits,  that 
blindness  in  part  has  happened  unto  Israel,  until  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  Although  the  interpretations 
given  of  this  and  the  following  verses  are  very  numerous,  they 
are  all  modifications  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  following 
general  views  of  the  passage.  1.  Many  understand  tlie  apostle 
as  not  predicting  any  remarkable  future  conversion  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  but  merely  declaring  that  the  hardening  or  blind- 
ing of  the  nation  was  not  such  as  to  prevent  many  Jews  en- 
tering the  Christian  church,  as  long  as  the  Gentiles  continued 
to  come  in.  Thus  all  the  true  Israel,  embracing  Jews  as  well 
as  Gentiles,  should  ultimately  be  saved.     2.  The  second  general 

*  Frigidum  apud  homines  profanos  argumcntum  hoc  forct.  «  »  At  quia  fuleles 
quoties  Dei  potentiam  nominari  amliunt,  quasi  pracsens  opus  intiientur,  hanc  ratio- 
nem  satis  putavit  valere,  ad  perccllendas  eorum  inentes. — CshviJr. 

60 


474  ROMANS  11:  11—36. 

view  supposes  the  apostle,  on  the  contrary,  to  predict  a  great 
and  general  conversion  of  the  Jewish  people,  which  should 
take  place  when  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  had  been  brought 
in,  and  that  then,  and  not  till  then,  those  prophecies  should  be 
fully  accomplished  which  speak  of  the  salvation  of  Israel. 
The  former  of  these  views  was  presented,  in  different  forms,  by 
the  great  body  of  the  authors  who  lived  about  the  time  of  the 
Reformation;  who  were  led  by  the  extravagancies  of  the  Mil- 
lenarians,  who  built  much  on  this  passage,  to  explain  away  its 
prophetic  character  almost  entirely.* 

The  second  view  has  been  the  one  generally  received  in 
every  age  of  the  church,  with  the  exception  of  the  period  just 
referred  to.  That  it  is  the  correct  interpretation,  appears 
evident  for  the  following  reasons.  1.  The  whole  context  and 
drift  of  the  apostle's  discourse  is  in  its  favour.  In  the  preceding 
part  of  the  chapter,  Paul,  in  the  plainest  terms,  had  taught  that 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews  was  a  probable  event,  and  that  it 
would  be  in  the  hi2;hest  deo;ree  beneficial  and  glorious  for  the 
whole  world.  This  idea  is  presented  in  various  forms,  and 
practical  lessons  are  deduced  from  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
that  Paul  contemplated  something  more  than  merely  the  silent 
addition  of  a  few  Israelites  to  the  church  during  successive 
ages.  2.  It  is  evident  that  Paul  meant  to  say  that  the  Jews 
were  to  be  restored  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  then  re- 
jected. They  were  then  rejected  not  merely  as  individuals 
but  as  a  community,  and,  therefore,  are  to  be  restored  as  a 
community;  see  vs.  11,  15.  How  can  the  latter  passage  (v.  15), 
especially,  be  understood  of  the  conversion  of  the  small  number 
of  Jews  which,  from  age  to  age,  have  joined  the  Christian  church  ? 
This  surely  has  not  been  as  "  life  from  the  dead,"  for  the 
whole  world.  3.  It  is  plain  from  this  and  other  parts  of  the 
discourse  that  Paul  refers  to  a  great  event:  something  which 
should  attract  universal  attention.     4.  In  accordance  with  this 


•  WoLFius,  in  his  Curae,  gives  an  account  of  the  authors  who  discuss  the  mean- 
ing of  this  and  the  following  verses,  as  Calovius  in  Bibliis  Illustratis;  Buddeus  in 
Institute  Theol.  Dog.  p.  672.  Wolfius  liimsclf  says,  '  Contextus  suadet  credere, 
Paulum  id  hie  tantum  agcre,  ut  conversi  e  Gentilibus  non  existiment,  Judaeis  om- 
nem  spem  ad  Christum  in  po.stcrum  pcrvcniendi  praecisam  esse,  sed  ita  potius 
statuant,  ipsis  non  minus  ceteris  Gentilihus,  nondum  convcrsis,  viam  patere,  qua 
ad  Christum  pcrducantur. 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  475 

idea,  is  the  manner  of  introducing  this  verse,  /  would  not  have 
you  ignorant  brethren;  see  1  Cor.  10:  1.  12:  1,  and  elsewhere, 
Paul  uses  this  form  of  address  when  he  wishes  to  rouse  the 
attention    of    his   readers   to    something   specially    important. 
5.  The  gradual  conversion  of  a  few  Jews  is  no  mystery  in  the 
scriptural  sense  of  the  word.     The  term  properly  means  that 
which  is  secret  or  hidden.     It  rarely  is  used  to  express  the  idea 
that  a  thing  is  obscure,  or  incomprehensible,  but  is  applied 
either  to  all  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel;  Rom.  16:  25.  1  Cor. 
2:  7.  4:  1.  Eph.  6:  19,  &c.  &c.;  or  to  some  one  doctrine,  con- 
sidered as  previously  unknown  and  undiscoverable  by  human 
reason,   however   simple  and  intelligible  in    its  own  nature. 
Thus  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  admitted  into  the 
church  of  God,  Paul  calls  a  mystery,  Eph.  3:  4.  1:  9.     Any 
future  event,  therefore,  which  could  be  known  only  by  divine 
revelation,  is  a  mystery.    The  fact  that  all  should  not  die,  though 
all  should  be  changed,  was  a  mystery,  1  Cor.  15:  51.     In  like 
manner  here,  when  Paul  says,  "  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you 
ignorant  of  this  mystery,"  he  means  to  say  that  the  event  to 
which  he  referred,  was  one,  which,  depending  on  no  secondary 
cause,  but  on  the  divine  purpose,  could  be  known  only  by 
divine  revelation.     This  description  is  certainly  far  more  suita- 
ble to  the  annunciation  of  a  prophecy,  than  to  the  statement  of 
a  fact  which  might  have  been  confidently  inferred  from  what 
God  had  already  revealed.     6.  The  words  all  Israel,  in  the 
next  verse,  cannot,  as  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above 
would  require,  be  understood  of  the  spiritual  Israel;  because 
the  word  is  just  before  used  in  a  different  sense,  "  blindness  in 
part  has  happened  unto  Israel."     This  blindness  is  to  continue 
until  a  certain  time,  when  it  is  to  be  i-emoved,  and  then  all 
Israel  is  to  be  saved.     It  is  plain  that  Israel  in  these  cases  must 
be  understood  as  referring  to  the  same  class  of  persons.     This 
is  also  clear  from  the  opposition  between  the  terms  Israel  and 
Gentile.     7.  The  words   (a^iig  ou),  correctly  rendered   in  our 
version  until,  cannot,  so  consistently  with  usage,  be  translated 
as  long  as,  or  so  that,  followed  as  they  are  here  by  the  aorist 
subjunctive;  see  Rev.  15:8.  17: 17;  compare  Heb.  3: 13.     8.  The 
following   verses  seem   to    require  this   interpretation.      The 
result  contemplated  is  one  which  shall  be  a  full  accomplishment 
of  those  prophecies  which  predicted  the  salvation  of  the  Jews. 


476  ROMANS  11:  11—36. 

The  reason  given  in  vs.  28,  29,  for  the  event  to  which  Paul 
refers,  is  the  unchangeahleness  of  God's  purposes  and  covenant. 
Having  once  taken  the  Jews  into  special  connexion  with  himself, 
he  never  intended  to  cast  them  off  for  ever.  The  apostle  sums 
up  his  discourse  by  saying,  '  As  the  Gentiles  were  formerly 
unbelieving,  and  yet  obtained  mercy,  so  the  Jews  who  now 
disbelieve  shall  hereafter  be  brought  in,  and  thus  God  will  have 
mercy  on  all,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.'  From  all  these  con- 
siderations it  seems  obvious  that  Paul  intended  here  to  predict 
that  the  time  would  come  when  the  Jews  as  a  body  should  be 
converted  unto  the  Lord;  compai'e  2  Cor.  3:  16. 

Lest  ye  should  he  wise  in  your  own  conceits.  This  is 
given  as  the  reason  why  the  apostle  wished  the  Gentiles  to 
know  and  consider  the  event  which  he  was  about  to  announce. 
This  clause  may  mean  either, '  Lest  ye  proudly  imagine  that 
your  own  ideas  of  the  destiny  of  the  Jews  are  correct.'  Or, 
*  Lest  ye  be  proud  and  elated,  as  though  you  were  better  and 
more  highly  favoured  than  the  Jews.'  Tlie  former  is  perhaps 
inost  in  accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  (sv 
^aiiTo"5  9^ovijao() ;  see  Proverbs  3 :  7. 

Blindness  in  part,  i.  c.  partial  blindness;  partial  as  to  its 
extent  and  continuance;  because  not  all  the  Jews  were  thus 
blinded,  nor  were  the  nation  to  remain  blind  for  ever.  The 
word  ('Tw^wrfig)  rendered  blindness  is  more  correctly  rendered, 
in  Mark  3:  5,  hardyiess;  compare  Eph.  4:  16;  see  v.  7,  and 
ch.  9:  18. 

Until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  See  v.  12 
for  the  various  meanings  of  the  word  (':rX*)|wfAa)  rendered  ful- 
ness. The  sense  which  best  suits  this  passage  is  multitude; 
see  Gen.  48:  19,  "His  seed  shall  become  a  multitude  of  na- 
tions;" and  Is.  31:  4,  where,  in  Hebrew,  tiie  word  for  fulness 
is  used.  The  clause  then  means,  '  Until  the  multitude  of  the 
Gentiles  be  converted.'  It  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  all 
the  Gentiles  are  to  be  thus  brought  in  before  the  conversion  of 
the  Jews  occurs,  but  that  this  latter  event  was  not  to  take  place 
until  a  great  multitude  of  the  Gentiles  had  entered  into  the 
kingdom  of  Christ. 

(26)  ^'^nd  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  as  it  is  ivritten.  Israel 
here,  from  the  context,  must  mean  the  Jewish  people,  and  all 
Israel  the  whole  nation,  in  opposition  to  the  part  spoken  of 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  477 

above.  Now,  part  of  the  Jewish  people  is  rejected;  tiien,  the 
whole  shall  be  gathered  in.  The  nation,  as  such,  shall  ac- 
knowledge Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  be  admitted  into  his 
kingdom. 

In  support  of  this  declaration,  Paul  appeals  to  a  prediction 
in  Isaiah  59:  20,  There  shall  come  out  of  Sion  the  deliverer^ 
who  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob.  The  apostle's 
version  of  this  passage  agrees  neither  with  the  Hebrew  nor  the 
Septuagint.  It  differs,  however,  but  little  from  the  latter.  In- 
stead of  out  of  Zion,  the  Greek  version  has  for  the  sake  of 
Zion,  and  the  English  to  Zion.  The  last  is  the  most  literal, 
the  second  is  also  correct,  but  the  first  {out  of  Zion)  is  not 
consistent  with  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  preposition  used  by 
Isaiah.  It  is  most  probable,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  bor- 
rowed those  words  from  Ps.  14:  7.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  the  departure  from  the  Hebrew  is  more  serious.  In  our 
version  we  have  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  "  The  Re- 
deemer shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto  them  that  turn  from  trans- 
gression in  Jacob."  Paul  follows  the  Septuagint,  with  which 
also  the  Chaldee  paraphrase  agrees.  This  agreement  of  the 
ancient  versions  has  led  critics  to  suppose  that  the  ancient 
translators  found  a  different  reading  in  the  Hebrew  text  from 
that  which  we  have  at  present.*  This  is  the  more  probable, 
because  the  Hebrew  phrase,  as  it  now  stands,  is  very  unusual, 
to  the  converts  of  transgression.  But  even  according  to  the 
present  text,  the  passage  contains  the  general  meaning  which 
the  apostle  attributes  to  it.  '  The  Goel,  the  deliverer,  should 
come  for  the  salvation  of  Zion.' 

The  apostle  informs  us  that  the  deliverance  which  God  pro- 
mised to  effect,  and  which  is  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  in  the 
passage  above  cited,  included  much  more  than  the  conversion 
of  the  few  Jews  who  believed  in  Christ  at  the  advent.  The 
full  accomplishment  of  the  promise,  that  he  should  turn  away 
ungodliness  from  Jacob,  contemplated  the  conversion  of  the 
whole  nation  as  such  to  the  Lord.  We  are,  of  course,  bound 
to  receive  the  apostle's  interpretation  as  correct,  and  there  is 
the  less  difficulty  in  this,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  pas- 
sage at  all  incompatible  with  it,  and  as  it  accords  willi  the  na- 
ture of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people. 

*  yvr^  for  '3wS.i 


478  ROMANS  11:  11—36. 

(27)  For  this  is  my  covenant  unto  them,  lohen  I  shall 
take  aivay  their  sins.  This  verse  is  not  a  quotation  from  any 
one  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  rather  a  declaration,  on 
the  part  of  the  apostle,  of  the  purport  of  God's  promises  or 
covenant  with  his  people.  The  first  clause  occurs  in  Is.  59: 
21,  immediately  after  the  passage  quoted  above,  and  also  in  Jer. 
31:  33.  The  latter  clause  may  be  considered  either  as  the  sub- 
stance of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah,  or  as  borrowed  from  Is. 
27:  9,  where,  in  the  Septuagint,  these  same  words  occur.  In 
either  case  the  general  idea  is  the  same.  '  The  promise  of  God 
contemplated  the  taking  away  of  the  sins  of  his  covenant  peo- 
ple, and  their  consequent  restoration  to  his  favour.'  The  words 
wheji  I  shall  take  aiuay  their  sins  may,  according  to  the  con- 
text, mean  either  ivhen  I  have  punished  their  sins,  or,  when 
I  have  removed  them.  Neither  is  inconsistent  with  the  con- 
text in  this  case,  as  the  apostle  may  mean  that  God  would 
restore  the  Jews  after  he  had  punished  them  for  their  iniquities, 
or  when  he  had  converted  them  from  their  unbelief;  see  Is.  4:  4. 

(28)  t^5  concerning  the  gospel  they  are  eneinies  for  your 
sakes,  but  as  touching  the  election  they  are  beloved  for  the 
fathers^  sakes.  In  this  and  the  few  following  verses,  the  apos- 
tle sums  up  what  he  had  previously  taught.  The  Jews,  he 
says,  were  now,  as  far  as  the  gospel  was  concerned,  regarded 
and  treated  as  enemies  for  the  benefit  of  the  Gentiles,  but,  in 
reference  to  the  election,  they  were  still  regarded  as  the  pecu- 
liar people  of  God  on  account  of  their  connexion  with  the 
patriarchs.  They  are  enernies,  whetlier  of  the  gospel,  of  the 
apostle,  or  of  God,  is  not  expressed,  and,  therefore,  depends  on 
the  context.  Each  view  of  the  clause  has  its  advocates;  the 
last  is  the  correct  one,  because  they  are  enemies  to  him,  by 
whom,  on  one  account,  they  are  beloved.  The  word  may  be 
taken  actively  or  passively.  They  are  inimical  to  God,  or 
they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  enemies  by  him.  The  latter 
best  suits  the  context.  They  are  now  aliens  from  their  own 
covenant  of  promise. 

*/ls  concerning  the  gospel,  that  is,  the  gospel  is  the  occasion 
of  their  being  regarded  as  enemies.  This  is  explained  by  a 
reference  to  vs.  11,  15.  By  their  ])unishment  the  progress  of 
the  gospel  has  been  facilitated  among  the  Gentiles;  and,  there- 
fore, the  apostle  says,  it  infor  your  sakes  they  are  thus  treated. 


ROMANS  11:  11— 3G.  479 

On  the  other  hand,  as  it  regards  the  election  or  the  covenant 
of  God,  they  are  still  regarded  with  peculiar  favour,  because 
descended  from  those  patriarchs  to  whom  and  to  whose  seed 
the  promises  were  made.  This  is  but  expressing  in  a  different 
form  the  idea  which  the  apostle  had  previously  presented,  viz. 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  inconsistent  with  the 
final  rejection  of  the  Jews  as  a  people.  God  foresaw  and  pre- 
dicted their  temporary  defection  and  rejection  from  his  king- 
dom, but  never  contemplated  their  being  for  ever  excluded; 
see  vs.  16,  25 — 27.* 

(29)  For  the  gift  and  calling  of  God  are  ivithout  repent- 
ance. God  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  change.  Having  chosen 
the  Jews  as  his  people,  the  purpose  w'hich  he  had  in  view  in 
that  choice  can  never  be  altered;  and  as  it  was  his  purpose  that 
they  should  ever  remain  his  people,  their  future  restoration  to 
his  favour  and  kingdom  is  certain.  Having  previously  ex- 
plained the  nature  of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people, 
Paul  infers  from  the  divine  character  that  it  will  be  fully  accom- 
plished. Calling  is  equivalent  to  election  as  appears  from 
the  context,  the  one  word  being  substituted  for  the  other,  and 
also  from  the  use  of  the  cognate  terms,  (see  ch.  8:  28.  I:  7,  &c. 
&c.)  The  general  proposition  of  the  apostle,  therefore,  is,  that 
the  purposes  of  God  are  unchangeable;  and,  consequently, 
those  whom  God  has  chosen  for  any  special  benefit  cannot  fail 
to  attain  it.  The  persons  whom  he  hath  chosen  to  eternal  life, 
shall  certainly  be  saved;  and  the  people  whom  he  chooses  to 
special  national  or  external  j)rivileges  cannot  for  ever  be  de- 
prived of  them.  As  in  the  whole  context  Paul  is  speaking  not 
of  individuals,  but  of  the  rejection  and  restoration  of  the  Jews 
as  a  body,  it  is  evident  that  the  calling  and  election  which  he 
here  has  in  view,  are  such  as  pertain  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation, 
and  not  such  as  contemplate  the  salvation  of  individuals.! 


*  Paulus  autum  docet,  ita  (Judacos)  fuissc  ad  tcmpus  Dei  providentia  excacca- 
tos,  ut  via  evangelio  ad  gentes  sterneretur:  caeterum  non  esse  in  perpetuuni  a  Dei 
gratia  exclusos.  Fatetur  ergo — Deum  non  esse  immemorem  foederis,  quod 
cum  patribus  eorum  pepigit,  et  quo  testatus  est,  se  aeterno  consilio  gentem  illain 
dilectione  complexam  esse. — Calvin. 

I  Dona  et  vocatio  Dei  sine  poenitentia  sunt.  Dona  et  vocationcni  posuit  per 
hypallagen  pro  beneficio  vocationis:  noque  etiam  de  qualibct  vocatione  intelligi  hoc 
debet,  sed  de  ilia,  qua  posteros  Abrahae  in  foedus  adoptavit  Deus :  quando  de  hac 


4S0  ROMANS  11:  11— 3G. 

(30,  31)   For  as  ye  in  fimes  past  have  not  believed  God, 
yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief;  even 
so,  &c.     These  verses  contain  a  repetition  and  confirmation  of 
the  previous  sentiment.     The  cases  of  the  Gentiles  and  Jews 
are  very  nearly  parallel.     Formerly  the  Gentiles  were  disbe- 
lieving, yet  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  became  the  occasion  of 
their  obtaining  mercy;   so  now,  though  the  Jews  are  disobe- 
dient, the  mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles  is  to  be  the  means  of 
their  obtaining  mercy.     As  the  gospel  came  from  the  Jews  to 
the  Gentiles,  so  is  it  to  return  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews. 
Paul  had  before  stated  how  the  unbelief  of  the  Israelites  was 
instrumental  in  promoting  the  salvation  of  other  nations,  and 
how  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  to  re-act  upon  the  Jews. 
The  31st  verse  is  thus  rendered  in  our  translation,  and,  no 
doubt,  correctly.     Even  so  have  these  also  noiv  not  believed, 
that  through  your  mercy  they  also  may  obtain  mercy.     The 
particle  rendered  that,  expresses  here  the  result  rather  than  the 
design.     They  now  are  disbelieving,  not  in  order  that  they 
might  obtain  mercy  through  your  mercy;  but  such  is  the  result. 
Through  your  mercy.     The  dative  (sXssi),  in  which  form  the 
words  thus  translated  occur,  here,  as  in  v.  30  and  often  else- 
where, expresses  the  cause  or  occasion.     As,  however,  in  the 
original,  the  particle  (i'va)  that  stands  after  these  words,  and 
not,  as  in  our  version,  before  them,  the  verse  is  very  often  dif- 
ferently pointed,*  so  as  to  give  an  entirely  different  sense.    The 
comma  is  placed  after  the  word  rendered  mercy,  which  is  thus 
connected  with   the  preceding  clause.     Calvin  so  renders  the 
passage,  '  They  disbelieve,  because  ye  have  obtained  mercy.' 
Luther,  '  They  would  not  believe  in  the  mercy  which  you  have 
obtained.'      Others,  '  They  disbelieve,  that  ye   might  obtain 
mercy.'     But  the  reason   for  this  pointing,  derived  from  the 
position  of  tlie  particle  in  question,  is  not  sufficient,  as  it  is  not 
unusual  for  it  to  be  thus  transj)osed,  see  2  Cor.  2:  4;  and  the 
sense  thus  obtained  is  not  so  consistent  with  the  context.     Paul 


sppcialiter  erat  instituta  dispiitatio.    Sicuti  nomine  electionis  a  paulo  ante  arcanum 
Dei  consilium  notavit,  quo  .Judaoi  olim  a  gcntibus  lUscrcti  fuerunt. — Calvis. 

*  The  ori;Tinai  is  oii-rw  xai  ouToi  vvv  '/jirsih-ridav  tw  ij|XSTt'PiJ  iXsn,  Tva  xai 
auTO)  sXEriSwCi.  So  many  editions  point  the  passage;  Lachmann's  among  the 
number.  The  Latin  Vulgate  translates  thus,  "  Ita  et  isti  nunc  non  crediderunt  in 
vestram  miscricordiam :  ut  et  ipsi  misericordiam  consequantur." 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  481 

had  repeatedly  remarked  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
was  to  be  the  occasion  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  as  the  dis- 
belief of  the  latter  had  been  the  occasion  of  good  to  the  former. 
And  this  seems  obviously  his  meaning  here,  from  the  opposition 
between  the  phrases  their  unbelief  and  your  mercy.  The  con- 
struction of  the  passage,  therefore,  adopted  by  our  translations 
is  to  be  preferred  to  the  other. 

(32)  For  God  hath  concluded  all  in  unhelief  that  he 
might  have  mercy  upon  all.  The  word  (ffuvExXsKrc-)  rendered 
hath  concluded,  means  hath  delivered  over  to  the  power  of. 
Ps.  31:  8,  "Thou  hast  not  shut  me  up  into  the  hand  of  the 
enemy;"  Ps.  78:  50,  "  He  gave  their  life  over  to  the  pestilence." 
In  both  these  cases  the  Septuagint  employ  the  word  here  used 
by  the  apostle.  So,  too.  Gal.  3:  22,  "  The  scripture  hath  con- 
cluded all  under  sin,"  i.  e.  declared  all  to  be  delivered  up  to 
the  power  of  sin.  The  meaning  of  the  passage,  therefore,  is, 
that  God  has  delivered  all  men  unto  unbelief,  i.  e.  has  permitted 
all  thus  to  sin;  or,  has  delivered  them  over,  in  the  sense  in 
which,  in  ch.  1 :  28,  he  is  said  to  deliver  men  up  to  the  evil  of 
their  own  hearts.  The  object  of  Paul  seems  to  be  to  direct  the 
attention  of  his  readers  to  the  fact,  that  God's  dealings  with 
men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  had  been  such  as  to  place  them  upon  the 
same  ground.  Both  were  dependent  on  sovereign  mercy.  Both 
had  sunk  into  a  state  whence  no  effort  and  no  merit  of  their 
own  could  redeem  them,  and  whence,  if  saved  at  all,  it  must  be 
by  grace.  Besides  this,  it  seems  to  be  intimated  that  the  de- 
sign of  this  dispensation  was  to  display  the  divine  mercy,  and, 
consequently,  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  unbelieving  and  sin- 
ful, instead  of  rendering  their  case  hopeless,  made  them  fit 
subjects  for  the  display  of  the  goodness  of  God.  At  least  their 
case  was  no  worse  than  that  of  the  Gentiles  who  had  already 
obtained  mercy.*  As,  therefore,  all  men  had  forfeited  every 
claim  to  the  divine  mercy,  and  all  were  in  the  same  condition 
of  unbelief,  God  had  determined  to  display  his  goodness  by 
having  mercy  upon  all  (that  is,  upon  the  Jews  as  well  as  the 
Gentiles),  and  thus  bring  all  ultimately  to  one  fold  under  one 
shepherd. 

(33_36)  The  apostle  having  finished  his  exhibition  of  the 

*  Pulcherrima  clausula,  qua  ostendit  non  esse  cur  de  aliis  desperent  qui  spem- 
aliquam  habent  salutis. — Calvin. 

61 


482  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

plan  of  redemption,  having  presented  clearly  the  doctrine  of 
justification,  sanctification,  the  certainty  of  salvation  to  all  be- 
lievers, election,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  present  rejection 
and  final  restoration  of  the  Jews,  in  view  of  all  the  wonders 
and  all  the  glories  of  the  divine  dealings  with  men,  pours  forth 
this  sublime  and  affecting  tribute  to  the  wisdom,  goodness  and 
sovereignty  of  God.  Few  passages,  even  in  the  scriptures,  are 
to  be  compared  with  this,  in  the  force  with  which  it  presents 
the  idea  that  God  is  all,  and  man  is  nothing.  It  is  supposed 
by  many  that  these  verses  have  reference  to  the  doctrines 
taught  in  the  immediate  context;  and  that  it  is  the  wisdom  of 
God,  as  displayed  in  the  calling  of  men.  Gentiles  and  Jews, 
which  Paul  here  contemplates.  Others  restrict  them  still  fur- 
ther to  the  display  of  the  mercy  of  God,  of  which  the  apostle 
had  just  been  speaking.  But  the  passage  should  be  applied  to 
that  to  which  it  is  most  naturally  applicable.  The  question  is, 
what  called  forth  these  admiring  views  of  the  dispensations  of 
God  ?  The  truth  that  he  would  ultimately  restore  his  ancient 
people  ?  or  the  whole  exhibition  of  the  economy  of  redemp- 
tion ?  As  the  passage  occurs  at  the  close  of  this  exhibition,  as 
it  expresses  precisely  the  feelings  which  it  might  be  expected 
to  produce,  and  as  there  is  nothing  to  restrict  it  to  the  imme- 
diate context,  it  is  most  natural  to  consider  it  as  referring  to  all 
that  the  apostle  had  hitherto  taught. 

The  principal  ideas  presented  in  this  passage  are,  1.  The 
incomprehensible  character  and  infinite  excellence  of  the  divine 
nature  and  dispensations,  v.  33.  2.  His  entire  independence  of 
man,  vs.  34,  35.  3,  His  comprehending  all  things  within  him- 
self; being  the  source,  the  means,  and  the  end  of  all,  v.  35. 

(33)  0  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  luisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God  !  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments, 
and  his  tvays  are  jiast  finding  out.  Although  it  is  not 
probable  that,  in  such  a  passage,  every  word  was  designed  to  be 
taken  in  a  very  precise  and  definite  sense,  yet  it  is  likely  that 
Paul  meant  to  express  different  ideas  by  the  terms  ivisdoni  and 
knowledge,  because  both  are  so  wonderfully  displayed  in  the 
work  of  redemption,  of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  All- 
comprehending  knowledge,  which  surveyed  all  the  subjects  of 
this  work,  all  the  necessities  and  circumstances  of  their  being, 
all  the  means  requisite  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  divine 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  483 

purpose,  and  all  the  results  of  those  means  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end.  Infinite  wisdom  in  selecting  and  adapting  the 
means  to  the  object  in  view,  in  the  ordering  of  the  whole 
scheme  of  creation,  providence  and  redemj)tioa,  so  tliat  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  happiness  of  his  creatures  are,  and  are  to 
be,  so  wonderfully  promoted.  His  judgments  are  unsearch- 
able. That  is,  his  decisions,  purposes  or  decrees.  Ps.  119: 
75.  In  this  sense  this  clause  differs  from  the  following.  The 
plans  and  purposes  of  God  are  unsearchable,  and  his  ways,  his 
methods  of  executing  them,  are  incomprehensible.  Or  both 
clauses  may  be  understood  as  containing  the  same  general  idea, 
God's  dealings  are  beyond  the  comprehension  of  mortals. 

(34)  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?  Who 
hath  been  his  counsellor?  See  Is.  40:  13.  Jer.  23:  IS.  This 
and  the  following  verse  confirm  the  declaration  of  the  preceding, 
and  assert  the  entire  independence  of  God.  His  judgments 
and  ways  are  unsearchable,  for  who  has  ever  entered  into  his 
counsel,  or  known  his  purposes  ?  He  derives  knowledge  from 
none  of  his  creatures,  but  is  in  this,  as  in  all  things  else,  inde- 
pendent of  them  all. 

(35)  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him  and  it  shall  be  recom- 
pensed to  him  again  ?  This  is  not  to  be  confined  to  giving 
counsel  or  knowledge  to  God,  but  expresses  the  general  idea 
that  the  creature  can  do  nothing  to  place  God  under  obligation. 
It  will  be  at  once  perceived  how  appropriate  is  this  thought,  in 
reference  to  the  doctrines  which  Paul  had  been  teaching.  Men 
are  justified,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  own  merit,  but  of  the 
merit  of  Christ;  they  are  sanctified,  not  by  the  power  of  their 
own  good  purposes,  and  the  strength  of  their  own  will,  but  by  the 
Spirit  of  God;  they  are  chosen  and  called  to  eternal  life,  not  on 
the  ground  of  any  thing  in  them,  but  according  to  the  purpose  of 
him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
God,  therefore,  is  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  of  salvation.  The 
creature  has  neither  merit  nor  power.  His  hopes  must  rest  on 
sovereign  mercy  alone. 

(36)  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  arc  all 
things;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.  Amen.  The  reason  why 
man  can  lay  God  under  no  obligation,  is  that  God  is  himself  all 
and  in  all;  the  source,  the  means  and  the  end.  By  him  all 
things  are;  through  his  power,  wisdom  and  goodness  all  things 


484  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

are  directed  and  governed;  and  to  him  as  their  last  end  all 
things  tend.  For  the  display  of  his  character,  every  thing 
exists  and  is  directed  as  the  highest  and  noblest  of  all  possible 
objects.  Creatures  are  as  nothing,  less  than  vanity  and  nothing 
in  comparison  with  God.  Human  knowledge,  power  or  virtue, 
are  mere  glimmering  reflections  from  the  brightness  of  the 
divine  glory.  That  system  of  religion,  therefore,  is  best  in 
accordance  with  the  character  of  God,  the  nature  of  man,  and 
the  end  of  the  universe,  in  which  all  things  are  of,  through  and 
to  God;  and  which  most  effectually  leads  men  to  say,  not 

UNTO  us,  BUT  UNTO  THY  NAME  BE  ALL  THE  GLORY ! 

Such  is  the  appropriate  conclusion  of  the  doctrinal  portion  of 
this  wonderful  epistle;  in  which  more  fully  and  clearly  than  in 
any  other  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  the  plan  of  salvation  is 
presented  and  defended.  Here  are  the  doctrines  of  grace; 
doctrines  on  which  the  pious  in  all  ages  and  nations  have  rested 
their  hopes  of  heaven,  though  they  may  have  had  comparatively 
obscure  intimations  of  their  nature.  The  leading  principle  of 
all  is,  that  God  is  the  source  of  all  good,  that  in  fallen  man 
there  is  neither  merit  nor  ability;  that  salvation  consequently  is 
all  of  grace,  as  well  sanctification  as  pardon,  as  well  election  as 
the  bestowment  of  eternal  glory.  For  of  him,  and  through  him, 
and  to  him, are  all  things;  to  whom  be  glory  forever.     Amen. 

Doctrines. 
1.  There  is  to  be  a  general  conversion  of  the  Jews,  concern- 
ing which  the  apostle  teaches  us,  1.  That  it  is  to  be  in  some 
way  consequent  on  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  vs.  11,  31. 
2.  That  it  will  be  attended  with  the  most  important  and  de- 
sirable results  for  the  rest  of  the  world,  vs.  12,  15.  3.  That  it 
is  to  take  place  after  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  is  brought  in; 
that  is,  after  the  conversion  of  multitudes  of  the  Gentiles,  (how 
many,  who  can  tell  ?)  v.  25.  Nothing  is  said  of  this  restora- 
tion being  sudden,  or  effected  by  miracle,  or  consequent  on  the 
second  advent,  or  as  attended  by  a  restoration  of  the  Jews  to 
their  own  land.  These  particulars  have  all  been  added  by  some 
commentators,  either  from  their  own  imagination  or  from  their 
views  of  other  portions  of  the  scriptures.  They  are  not  taught 
by  the  apostle.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  through  the  mercy 
shown  to  the  Gentiles,  according  to  Paul,  that  the  Jews  arc  to 


ROMANS  11:  11—36.  485 

be  brought  in,  which  clearly  implies  thai,  the  former  are  to  be 
instrumental  in  the  restoration  of  the  latter.  And  he  every 
where  teaches,  that  after  their  restoration  to  the  church,  the 
distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  ceases.  In  Christ  there 
is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  Barbarian  nor  Scythian,  bond  nor 
free,  Col.  3:  11;  all  classes  are  merged  in  one,  as  was  the  case 
under  the  direction  of  the  apostles  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
church. 

2.  The  church  of  God  is  the  same  in  all  ages  and  under  all 
dispensations.  It  is  the  society  of  the  true  people  of  God, 
together  with  their  children.  To  this  society  the  ancient  pa- 
triarchs and  their  posterity  belonged;  into  this  society,  at  the 
time  of  Christ,  other  nations  were  admitted,  and  the  great  body 
of  the  Jews  were  cast  out,  and  into  this  same  community  the 
ancient  people  of  God  are  to  be  again  received.  In  every  stage 
of  its  progress,  the  church  is  the  same.  The  olive  tree  is  one, 
though  the  branches  are  numerous  and  sometimes  changed, 
vs.  17 — 24. 

3.  The  web  of  Providence  is  wonderfully  woven.  Good 
and  evil  are  made  with  equal  certainty,  under  the  government 
of  infinite  wisdom  and  benevolence,  to  result  in  the  promotion 
of  God's  gracious  and  glorious  designs.  The  wicked  unbelief 
and  consequent  rejection  of  the  Jews  are  made  the  means  of 
facilitating  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles;  the  holy  faith  and 
obedience  of  the  Gentiles  are  to  be  the  means  of  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews,  vs.  11,  31. 

4.  All  organized  communities,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  have  a 
common  responsibility,  a  moral  personality  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  are  dealt  with  accordingly,  rewarded  or  punished  accord- 
ing to  their  conduct,  as  such.  As  their  organized  existence  is 
confined  to  this  world,  so  must  the  retributive  dispensations  of 
God  respecting  them  be.  Witness  the  rejection,  dispersion 
and  sufferings  of  the  Jews,  as  a  national  punishment  for  their 
national  rejection  of  the  Messiah.  Witness  the  state  of  all  the 
eastern  churches  broken  off  from  the  olive  tree  for  the  unbelief 
of  former  generations.  Their  fathers  sinned,  and  their  chil- 
dren's children,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  suffer  the 
penalty  as  they  share  in  the  guilt,  vs.  11 — 24. 

5.  The  security  of  every  individual  Christian  is  suspended 
on  his  continuing  in  faith  and  holy  obedience:  whicli  is  indeed 


4S6  ROMANS  11:  11— 36. 

rendered  certain  by  the  purpose  and  promise  of  God.  In  like 
manner  the  security  of  every  civil  and  ecclesiastical  society,  in 
the  enjoyment  of  its  peculiar  advantages,  is  suspended  on  its 
fidelity  as  such,  for  which  fidelity  there  is  no  special  promise 
with  regard  to  any  country  or  any  church,  vs.  20 — 24. 

6.  God  does  sometimes  enter  into  covenant  with  communi- 
ties, as  such.  Thus  he  has  covenanted  to  the  whole  human 
race  that  the  world  shall  not  be  again  destroyed  by  a  deluge, 
and  that  the  seasons  shall  continue  to  succeed  each  other,  in 
regular  order,  until  the  end  of  time.  Thus  he  covenanted  with 
the  Jews  to  be  a  God  to  them  and  to  their  seed  for  ever,  and 
that  they  should  be  to  him  a  people.  This,  it  seems,  is  a  per- 
petual covenant,  which  continues  in  force  until  the  present  day, 
and  which  renders  certain  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
privileges  of  the  church  of  God,  vs.  16,  28,  29. 

7.  It  is  the  radical  principle  of  the  bible,  and  consequently 
of  all  true  religion,  that  God  is  all  and  in  all;  that  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things.  It  is  the  tendency  of 
all  truth  to  exalt  God,  and  to  humble  the  creature;  and  it  is 
characteristic  of  true  piety  to  feel  that  all  good  comes  from 
God,  and  to  desire  that  all  glory  should  be  given  to  God, 
vs.  33—36. 

Remarks. 

1.  The  mutual  relation  between  the  Christian  church  and 
the  Jews  should  produce  in  the  minds  of  all  tlie  followers  of 
Christ,  1.  An  abiding  sense  of  our  obligations  to  the  Jews  as 
the  people  through  whom  the  true  religion  has  been  preserved, 
and  the  blessings  of  divine  truth  extended  to  all  nations,  vs.  17, 
18.  2.  Sincere  compassion  for  them,  because  their  rejection 
and  misery  have  been  the  means  of  reconciling  the  world  to 
God,  i.  e.  of  extending  the  gospel  of  reconciliation  among  men, 
vs.  11,  12,  15.  3.  The  banishment  of  all  feelings  of  contempt 
towards  them,  or  exultation  over  them,  vs.  IS,  20.  4.  An 
earnest  desire,  prompting  to  prayer  and  effort,  for  their  restora- 
tion, as  an  event  fraught  with  blessings  to  them  and  to  all  the 
world,  and  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass,  vs.  12, 
15,  25,  &c. 

2.  The  dealings  of  God  with  his  ancient  people  should, 
moreover,  teach  us,  1.  That  we  have  no  security  for  the  con- 


ROMANS  11:  11— 36.  487 

ti nuance  of  our  privileges  but  constant  fidelity,  v.  20.  2.  That, 
consequently,  instead  of  being  proud  and  self-confident,  we 
should  be  humble  and  cautious,  vs.  20,  21.  3.  That  God  will 
probably  not  bear  with  us  as  long  as  he  bore  with  the  Jews,  v. 
21.  4.  That  if  for  our  unbelief  we  are  cast  out  of  the  church, 
our  punishment  will  probably  be  more  severe.  There  is  no 
special  covenant  securing  the  restoration  of  any  apostate  branch 
of  the  Christian  church,  vs.  21,  24,  with  16,  27—29. 

3.  It  is  a  great  blessing  to  be  connected  with  those  who  are 
in  covenant  with  God.  T]ie  promise  is  "  to  thee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee."  "  The  Lord  thy  God,  he  is  God,  the  faithful  God, 
which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love  him 
and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations,"  Deut. 
7:  9.  The  blessing  of  Abraham  reaches,  in  some  of  its  pre- 
cious consequences,  to  the  Jews  of  this  and  every  coming  age, 
vs.  16,  27—29. 

4.  The  destiny  of  our  children  and  our  children's  children 
is  suspended,  in  a  great  measure,  on  our  fidelity.  "  God  is  a 
jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chil- 
dren unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate 
him."  What  words  of  woe  for  unborn  thousands,  were  those, 
"His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children!"  As  the  Jews  of 
the  present  age  are  suffering  the  consequences  of  the  unbelief  of 
their  fathers,  and  the  nominal  Christians  of  the  eastern  churches 
sufier  for  the  apostacy  of  previous  generations,  so  will  our  chil- 
dren perish,  if  we,  for  our  unbelief  as  a  church  and  nation,  arc 
cast  off  from  God,  v.  19—24. 

5.  As  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  is  not  only  a  most  desirable 
event,  but  one  which  God  has  determined  to  accomplish,  Chris- 
tians should  keep  it  constantly  in  view  even  in  their  labours  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  This  Paul  did,  vs.  13,  14. 
Every  effort  to  hasten  the  accession  of  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles is  so  much  done  towards  the  restoration  of  Israel,  v.  25. 

6.  Christians  should  not  feel  as  though  they  were  isolated 
beings,  as  if  each  one  need  be  concerned  for  himself  alone, 
having  no  joint  responsibility  with  the  community  to  which  he 
belongs.  God  will  deal  with  our  church  and  country  as  a 
whole,  and  visit  our  sins  upon  those  who  are  to  come  after  us. 
We  should  feel,  therefore,  that  we  are  one  body,  members  one 
of  another,  having  common  interests  and  responsibilities.     We 


488  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

ought  to  weep  over  the  sins  of  the  community  to  which  we 
belong,  as  being  in  one  sense,  and  in  many  of  their  conse- 
quences, our  sins,  vs.  11 — 24. 

7.  As  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance, 
those  to  whom  he  has  given  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  has  called 
unto  holiness,  may  rejoice  in  the  certainty  of  the  continuance 
of  these  blessings,  v.  29. 

8.  Does  the  contemplation  of  the  work  of  redemption,  and 
the  remembrance  of  our  own  experience,  lead  us  to  sympathize 
with  the  apostle  in  his  adoring  admiration  of  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  God,  and  to  feel  that,  as  it  regards  our  salvation, 
every  thing  is  of  him,  through  him,  and  to  him  ?  vs.  33 — 36. 

9.  As  it  is  the  tendency  and  result  of  all  correct  views  of 
Christian  doctrine  to  produce  the  feelings  expressed  by  the 
apostle  at  the  close  of  this  chapter,  those  views  cannot  be 
scriptural  which  have  a  contrary  tendency;  or  which  lead  us 
to  ascribe,  in  any  form,  our  salvation  to  our  own  merit  or 
power,  vs.  33 — 36. 


CHAPTER  XH. 

Contents. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first,  vs.  1 — 8,  treats 
of  piety  towards  God,  and  the  proper  estimation  and  use  of  the 
various  gifts  and  offices  employed  or  exercised  in  the  church. 
The  second,  vs.  9 — 21 ,  relates  to  love  and  its  various  manifesta- 
tions towards  different  classes  of  men. 


CHAP.  12:  1—8. 

%^nalysis. 
As  the  apostle  had  concluded  the  doctrinal  portion  of  the 
epistle  with  the  preceding  chapter,  agreeably  to  his  almost 
uniform  practice,  he  deduces  from  his  doctrines  important 
practical  lessons.  The  first  deduction  from  the  exhibition 
which  he  had  made  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  the  redemption  of 
men,  is  that  they  should  devote  themselves  to  him  as  a  living 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  489 

sacrifice,  and  be  conformed  to  his  will  and  not  to  the  manners 
of  the  world,  vs.  1,  2.  The  second  is,  that  they  should  be 
humble,  and  not  allow  the  diversity  of  their  gifts  to  destroy  the 
sense  of  their  unity  as  one  body  in  Christ,  vs.  3 — 5.  These 
various  gifts  were  to  be  exercised,  not  for  selfish  purposes,  but 
in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  nature  and  design;  diligently, 
disinterestedly  and  kindly,  vs.  6 — 8. 

Commentary. 

(1)  I  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of 
God,  &c.  As  the  sum  of  all  that  Paul  had  said  of  the  justifica- 
tion, sanctification  and  salvation  of  men  is,  that  these  results  are 
to  be  attributed,  not  to  human  merit  nor  to  human  eff'orts,  but 
to  the  mercy  of  God,  he  brings  the  whole  discussion  to  bear  as 
a  motive  for  devotion  to  God.  Whatever  gratitude  the  soul 
feels  for  pardon,  purity  and  the  sure  prospect  of  eternal  life  is 
called  forth  to  secure  its  consecration  to  that  God  who  is  the 
author  of  all  these  mercies. 

That  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  ac- 
ceptable unto  God.  All  the  expressions  of  this  clause  seem 
to  have  an  obvious  reference  to  the  services  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy.  Under  that  dispensation,  animals  free  from 
blemish  were  presented  and  devoted  to  God;  under  the  new 
dispensation  a  nobler  and  more  spiritual  service  is  to  be  ren- 
dered; not  the  oblation  of  animals,  but  the  consecration  of 
ourselves.  The  expression  your  bodies  is  perhaps  nearly 
equivalent  to  yourselves;  yet  Paul  probably  used  it  with  design, 
not  only  because  it  was  appropriate  to  the  figure,  but  because 
he  wished  to  render  the  idea  prominent  that  the  whole  man, 
body  as  well  as  soul,  was  to  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  God. 
"  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price;  therefore  glorify  God  in  your 
body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's,"  1  Cor.  6:  20.  The 
apostle  carries  the  figure  out;  the  sacrifice  is  to  be  living,  holy 
and  acceptable.  The  first  of  these  epithets  is  generally  con- 
sidered as  intended  to  express  the  contrast  between  the  sacrifice 
here  intended,  and  the  victims  which  were  placed  lifeless  upon 
the  altar;  thus  believers,  in  1  Peter  2:  5,  are  called  "living 
stones"  in  opposition  to  the  senseless  materials  employed  in  a 
literal  building.  The  word  living,  however,  may  mean  per- 
petual, lasting,  never  neglected;  as  in  the  phrases  "living 

62 


490  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

bread,"  John  6:  51,  'bread  which  never  looses  its  power;' 
"living  hope,"  1  Pet.  1:  3,  'hope  which  never  fails;'  "living 
waters,"  "a  living  way,"  &c. ;  (see  Wahl's  Lexicon  under  the 
word  ^«w.)  The  sacrifice  then  which  we  are  to  make  is  not  a 
transient  service  like  the  oblation  of  a  victim  which  was  in  a 
few  moments  consumed  upon  the  altar,  but  it  is  a  living  or 
perpetual  sacrifice  never  to  be  neglected  or  recalled.  The 
epithet  holy  has  probably  direct  reference  to  the  frequent  use 
of  a  nearly  corresponding  word  (2'?^^)  in  the  Hebrew  scrip- 
tures, which,  when  applied  to  sacrifices,  is  commonly  rendered 
without  blemish.  The  word  holy  is  then  in  this  case  equiva- 
lent to  immaculate,  i.  e.  free  from  those  defects  which  would 
cause  an  offering  to  be  rejected.  The  term  acceptable  is  here 
used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  phrase  "  for  a  sweet  smelling 
savour,"  Eph.  5:  2.  Phil.  4:  IS.  Lev.  1:  9,  i.  e.  grateful,  well- 
pleasing;  a  sacrifice  in  which  God  delights. 

Your  reasonable  service.  There  is  doubt  as  to  the  gram- 
matical construction  of  this  clause.  The  most  natural  and 
simple  explanation  is  to  consider  it  in  apposition  with  the 
preceding  member  of  the  sentence,  as  has  been  done  by  our 
translators,  who  supply  the  words  which  is.  This  consecration 
of  ourselves  to  God,  which  the  apostle  requires,  is  a  reasonable 
service.  The  word  (Xoyix^jv)  rendered  reasonable  is  variously 
explained.  The  simplest  interpretation  is  that  which  takes  the 
word  in  its  natural  sense,  viz.  pertaining  to  the  mind;  it  is  a 
mental  or  spiritual  service  in  opposition  to  ceremonial  and 
external  observances.  Compare  the  phrase  (Xoj/ixov  yaXa), 
'milk  suited,  or  pertaining  to  the  mind,'  1  Pet.  2:  2.  Others 
understand  these  words  as  expressing  the  difference  between 
the  sacrifices  under  the  Christian  disj)ensation  and  those  under 
the  Old.  Formerly  animals  destitute  of  reason  (aXoya  ^ua) 
were  offered  unto  God,  but  now  men  possessed  of  a  rational 
soul.*  But  this  interpretation  is  neither  so  Avell  suited  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  nor  does  it  give  a  sense  so  consistent  with 
the  context;  compare  1  Pet.  2:  5. 

(2)  *j^nd  be  not  conformed  to  this  world,  but  be  ye  trans- 
formed by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  &c.     Not  only  is  God 

•  In  V,  T.  offcrebantiu-  animaiitia  rationc  dcstituta,  scd  jam  offercndi  sunt  homi- 
nes ratione  praediti. — Schoettgen. 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  491 

to  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  as  required  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  but  there  must  be  a  corresponding  holiness  of  life. 
This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  manner  most  common  with  the 
sacred  writers.  Regarding  men  universally  as  corrupted  and  de- 
voted to  sin,  the  ivorlcl  is  with  them  equivalent  to  the.  wicked;  to 
be  conformed  to  the  world,  therefore,  is  to  be  like  unrenewed 
men  in  temper  and  in  life.  The  word  accurately  rendered  con- 
formed, expresses  strongly  the  idea  of  similarity  in  character 
and  manners;  and  that  rendered  /ra?j.s/br"merf  expresses  with 
equal  strength  the  opposite  idea.  •  This  loorld.  The  origin  of 
this  term,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  no  doubt  to  be 
sought  in  the  mode  of  expression  so  common  among  the  Jews, 
who  were  accustomed  to  distinguish  between  the  times  before, 
and  the  times  under  the  Messiah,  by  calling  the  former  period 
this  world,  or  this  uij^e  (nrn  rh^V),  and  the  latter,  the  world, 
or  age  to  come  (^'D  ^7^r).  The  former  phrase  thus  naturally 
came  to  designate  those  who  were  without,  and  the  latter  those 
who  were  within  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  they  are  equivalent  to 
the  expressions  the  world  and  the  church;  the  mass  of  man- 
kind and  the  people  of  God;  compare  1  Cor.  2:  8.  Eph.  2:  2. 
2  Cor.  4:  4.  Luke  20:  35.  Hcb.  2:5.  6:5.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  necessity  for  supposing,  as  is  done  by  many  commenta- 
tors, that  the  apostle  has  anv  special  reference,  in  the  use  of  this 
word,  to  the  Jewish  dispensation;  as  though  his  meaning  were, 
*  Be  not  conformed  to  the  Jewish  opinions  and  forms  of  wor- 
ship, but  be  transformed  and  accommodated  to  the  new  spiritual 
economy  under  which  ye  are  placed.'  The  word  (alijv)  here 
used,  and  the  equivalent  term  (xoV/xos)  commonly  translated 
world,  are  so  frequently  used  for  the  mass  of  mankind,  consid- 
ered in  opposition  to  the  people  of  God,  that  there  can  be  no 
good  reason  for  departing  from  the  common  interpretation, 
especially  as  the  sense  which  it  affords  is  so  good  in  itself  and 
so  well  suited  to  the  context. 

By  the  renewing  of  your  mind.  This  phrase  is  intended 
to  be  explanatory  of  the  preceding.  The  transformation  to 
which  Christians  are  exhorted,  is  not  a  mere  external  change, 
but  one  which  results  from  a  change  of  heart,  an  eritire  altera- 
tion of  the  state  of  the  mind.  The  word  rendered  mind  is 
used,  as  it  is  here,  frequently  in  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  1 : 


492  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

28.  Eph.  4:17,  23.  Col.  2:  18,  &c.,  in  all  these  and  in  similar 
cases  it  does  not  differ  from  the  word  heart. 

That  ye  may  he  able  to  prove  what  is  that  good  and  ac- 
ceptable and  perfect  will  of  God.  The  logical  relation  of  this 
clause  to  the  preceding  is  doubtful,  as  the  original  {slg  to  ^oxifxa^siv) 
admits  of  its  being  regarded  as  expressing  either  the  design  or 
the  result  of  the  change  just  spoken  of.  Our  translators  have 
adopted  the  former  view,  '  Ye  are  renewed,  in  order  that  ye 
may  be  able  to  prove,  &c.'  The  other,  however,  gives  an 
equally  good  sense,  '  Ye  are  renewed  so  that  ye  prove,  &c. ;' 
such  is  the  effect  of  the  change  in  question.  The  word  ren- 
dered to  prove  signifies  also  to  approve;  the  sense  of  this  pas- 
sage, therefore,  may  be  either  '  that  ye  may  try  or  prove  what 
is  acceptable  to  God,'  i.  e.  decide  upon  or  ascertain  what  is 
right;  or,  '  that  ye  may  approve  what  is  good,  &c.'  The  words 
good,  acceptable  and  perfect,  are  by  many  considered  as  pre- 
dicates of  the  word  ivill.  As,  however,  the  expression  '  accept- 
able will  of  God'  is  unnatural  and  unusual,  the  majority  of 
modern  commentators,  after  Erasmus,  take  them  as  substantives; 
*  that  ye  may  approve  what  is  good,  acceptable  and  perfect,  viz. 
the  will  of  God.'  The  last  phrase  is  then  in  apposition  with 
the  others.  The  design  and  result  then  of  that  great  change  of 
which  Paul  speaks  is,  that  Christians  should  know,  delight  in 
and  practice  whatever  is  good  and  acceptable  to  God;  compare 
Eph.  5:  10,  17.  Phil.  4:  8. 

(3)  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  given  nnto  me,  to  every 
man  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  himself  more  high- 
ly than  he  ought  to  think,  &c.  The  apostle  connects  with 
the  general  exhortation  contained  in  the  preceding  verses,  and 
founds  upon  it  an  exhortation  to  special  Christian  virtues.  The 
first  virtue  which  he  enjoins  upon  believers  is  modesty  or  hu- 
mility. This  has  reference  specially  to  the  officers  of  the 
church,  or  at  least  to  the  recipients  of  spiritual  gifts.  It  is  very 
evident  from  1  Cor.  12  and  14,  that  these  gifts  were  coveted  and 
exercised  by  many  of  the  early  Christians  for  the  purpose  of 
self-exaltation.  They,  therefore,  desired  not  those  which  were 
most  useful,  but  those  which  were  mostattractive;  and  some  were 
puffed  up,  while  others  were  envious  and  discontented.  This 
evil  the  apostle  forcihlj^  and  beautifully  reproved  in  the  chap- 


ROMANS  12:  1  —  8.  493 

ters  referred  to,  in  the  same  manner  that  he  does  here,  and  much 
more  at  length.  He  showed  his  readers  that  these  gifts  were 
all  gratuitous,  and  were,  therefore,  occasions  of  gratitude,  but 
not  grounds  of  boasting;  they  had  nothing  but  what  they  had  re- 
ceived. He  reminds  them  that  the  design  for  which  these  gifts 
were  bestowed,  was  the  edification  of  the  church,  and  not  the 
exaltation  of  the  receiver;  that,  however  diversified  in  their  na- 
ture, they  were  all  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit, 
and  were  as  necessary  to  a  perfect  whole  as  the  several  mem- 
bers of  the  body,  with  their  various  offices,  to  a  perfect  man. 
Having  one  Spirit,  and  constituting  one  body,  any  exaltation  of 
one  over  the  other,  was  as  unnatural  as  the  eye  or  ear  disregard- 
ing and  despising  the  hand  or  the  foot.  As  this  tendency  to 
abuse  their  official  and  spiritual  distinctions  was  not  confined  to 
the  Corinthian  Christians,  we  find  the  apostle,  in  this  passage, 
giving  substantially  the  same  instructions  to  the  Romans. 

Through  the  grace  given  unto  me.  The  word  grace  in 
this  clause  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  the  apostolic  office, 
which  Paul  elsewhere  speaks  of  as  a  great  fiivour;*  compare 
ch.  1:  5.  15:  15.  Eph.  2:  2,  8.  But  this  interpretation  appears 
here  too  limited;  the  word  probably  includes  all  the  favour  of 
God  towards  him,  not  merely  in  conferring  on  him  the  office 
of  an  apostle,  but  in  bestowing  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  ordi- 
nary and  extraordinary,  which  qualified  him  for  his  duties,  and 
gave  authority  to  his  instructions. 

Not  to  think  of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to 
think.  The  word  to  think  is  an  inadequate  translation  of  the 
Greek  ((p^ovsn/),  inasmuch  as  the  latter  includes  the  idea  of  the 
exercise  of  the  affijctions  as  well  as  of  the  intellect;  see  ch.  8: 
5.  Col.  3:  2.  Phil.  3:19.  To  think  of  one-self  too  highly,  is 
to  be  puffed  up  with  an  idea  of  our  own  importance  and 
superiority. 

But  to  think  soberly,  according  as  God  hath  dealt  to 
every  man  the  measure  of  faith.  There  is  in  the  first  mem- 
ber of  this  clause  a  beautiful  paronomasia  in  the  original  (opov^rv 
si's  to  (Tw^poverv),  which  is  lost  in  a  translation.     The  word  ren- 

•  Tantundem  valent  ejus  verba  acsi  dixissct :  Non  loquor  a  me  ipso,  sed  lega- 
tus  Dei,  quae  naihi  maiidata  ille  injunxit,  ad  vos  perfero.  Gratiam  (ut  prius)  vorat 
apostolatum,  quo  Dei  honitateni  in  eo  coiumcndct,  ac  simul  inmiat,  se  non  irnipisse 
propria  temeritate,  sed  Dei  vocatione  assumptum. — Caltix. 


494  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

dered  soberly  properly  means  to  be  of  a  sane  mind;  and  then 
to  be  moderate  or  temperate.  Paul  speaks  of  one  who  over- 
estimates or  praises  himself  as  being  beside  himself;  and  of 
him  who  is  modest  and  humble  as  being  of  a  sane  mind,  i.  e.  as 
making  a  proper  estimate  of  himself.  "For  whether  we  be 
beside  ourselves,  it  is  to  God;  or  whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for 
your  cause,"  2  Cor.  5:  13,  i.  e.  'If  we  commend  ourselves,  it 
is  that  God  may  be  honoured;  and  if  we  act  modestly  and 
abstain  from  self-commendation,  it  is  that  you  may  be  bene- 
fitted.' To  think  soberly,  therefore,  is  to  form  and  manifest  a 
right  estimate  of  ourselves,  and  of  our  gifts.  A  right  estimate 
can  never  be  other  than  a  very  humble  one,  since,  whatever 
there  is  of  good  in  us  is  not  of  ourselves  but  of  God. 

The  expression  measure  or  proportion  of  faith  is  variously 
explained.  Faith  may  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  and  the 
meaning  of  the  clause  be,  '  Let  every  one  think  of  himself 
according  to  the  degree  of  faith  or  confidence  in  God  which  has 
been  imparted  to  him,  and  not  as  though  he  had  more  than  he 
really  possesses.'  Or  faith  may  be  taken  for  what  is  believed, 
or  for  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  and  the  sense  be,  'according 
to  the  degree  of  knowledge  which  he  has  attained.'  Or  it  may 
be  taken  for  that  which  is  confided  to  any,  and  be  equivalent 
to  gift.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Let  every  one  think  of  himself 
according  to  the  nature  or  character  of  the  gifts  which  he  has 
received.'  This  is  perhaps  the  most  generally  received  inter- 
pretation, although  it  is  arrived  at  in  different  ways;  many 
considering  the  word  faith  here  as  used  metonymical  for  its 
effects,  viz.  for  the  various  (xa^igiiaTa)  graces,  ordinary  and  ex- 
traordinary, of  which  it  is  the  cause.  This  general  sense  is 
well  suited  to  the  context,  as  the  following  verses,  containing  a 
specification  of  the  gifts  of  prophesying,  teaching,  ruling,  &.c., 
appear  to  be  an  amplification  of  this  clause. 

(4,  5)  For  as  7ve  have  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all 
members  have  not  the  same  office;  so  tve,  &c.  In  these  verses 
we  have  the  same  comparison  that  occurs  more  at  length  in  1 
Cor.  12,  and  for  the  same  purpose.  The  object  of  the  apostle 
is  in  both  cases  the  same.  He  designs  to  show  that  the  diversity 
of  offices  and  gifts  among  Christians,  so  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent with  their  union  as  one  body  in  Christ,  is  necessary  to 
the  perfection  and  usefulness  of  that  body.     It  would   be  as 


ROMANS  12:  1— S.  195 

unreasonable  for  all  Christians  to  have  the  same  gifts,  as  for  all 
the  members  of  the  human  frame  to  have  the  same  office.  This 
comparison  is  peculiarly  beautiful  and  appropriate;  because  it 
not  only  clearly  illustrates  the  particular  point  intended,  but  at 
the  same  time  brings  into  view  the  important  truth  that  the  real 
union  of  Christians  results  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  the  union  of  the  several  members  of  the  body  is  the 
result  of  their  being  all  animated  and  actuated  by  one  soul. 
Nothing  can  present  in  a  clearer  light  the  duty  of  Christian 
fellowship,  or  the  sinfulness  of  divisions  and  envyings  among 
the  members  of  Christ's  body  than  the  apostle's  comparison. 
'  Believers  though  many  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every 
one*  members  one  of  another.' 

(6)  Having  therefore  gifts  differiitg  according  to  the 
grace  given  unto  us,  &.c.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  we 
have  the  application  of  the  preceding  comparison  to  the  special 
object  in  view.  'If  Christians  are  all  members  of  the  same 
body,  having  different  offices  and  gifts,  instead  of  being  puffiid 
up  one  above  another,  and  instead  of  envying  and  opposing  each 
other,  they  should  severally  discharge  their  respective  duties 
diligently  and  humbly  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not  for 
their  own  advantage.'  It  is  a  common  opinion  that  the  apostle, 
in  specifying  the  various  gifts  to  which  he  refers,  meant  to  ar- 
range them  under  the  two  heads  oi prophesying  and  adminis- 
tering; or  that  he  specifies  the  duties  of  two  classes  of  officers, 
the  prophets  and  deacons  (diaxovoi).  To  the  former  would  then 
belong  prophesying,  teaching,  exhortation;  to  the  latter,  minis- 
tering, giving,  ruling,  showing  mercy.  This  view  of  the  pas- 
sage, which  is  adopted  by  De  Brais,  Koppe  and  others,  requires 
that  the  terms  prophet  and  deacon  should  be  taken  in  their 
widest  sense.  Both  are  indeed  frequently  used  with  great  lati- 
tude; the  former  being  applied  to  any  one  who  speaks  as  the 
mouth  of  God,  or  the  explainer  of  his  will;  and  the  latter  to 
any  ministerial  officer  in  the  church,  1  Cor.  3:  5.  Eph.  3:  7. 
Col.  1:  7,  23,  &c.  Although  this  interpretation  is  consistent 
with  the  usage  of  the  words,  and  in  some  measure  simplifies  the 

*  The  Greek  phrase  o  xa'iiSic,  for  sTg  'haOTog  is  a  solecism,  not  occurring  among 
the  Classics  it  is  s:dd,  though  it  is  to  be  met  with  in  3  Mace.  5 :  34 ;  compare  Mark 
14:  19.  JoIiiiS:  9.  Kev.4:  8. 


496  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

passage,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  necessary.  There  is  no  appear- 
ance of  such  a  systematic  arrangement;  on  the  contrary,  Paul 
seems  to  refer  without  any  order  to  the  various  duties  which  the 
officers  and  even  private  members  of  the  church  were  called 
upon  to  perform.  The  construction  in  the  original  is  not  en- 
tirely regular,  and,  therefore,  has  been  variously  explained. 
There  is  no  interpretation  more  natural  than  that  adopted  by 
our  translators,  who,  considering  the  passage  as  elliptical,  have 
supplied  in  the  several  specifications  the  phrases  which  in  each 
case  the  sense  requires. 

Having  therefore  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace 
given  unto  us,  i.  e.  as  there  are  in  the  one  body  various  offices 
and  gifts,  let  every  one  act  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  particular  gift  which  lie  has  received. 
Whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  propor- 
tion of  faith.  The  first  gift  specified  is  that  o{  prophecy,  with 
regard  to  the  precise  nature  of  which  there  is  no  little  diversity 
of  opinion.  The  original  and  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  rendered  prophet  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  interpreter, 
one  who  explains  or  delivers  the  will  of  another.  And  to  this 
idea  the  Greek  term  also  answers.  It  matters  little  whether 
the  will  or  purpose  of  God  which  the  prophets  were  called 
upon  to  deliver,  had  reference  to  present  duty  or  to  future 
events.  They  derived  their  Hebrew  name  not  from  predicting 
what  was  to  come  to  pass,  which  was  but  a  small  part  of  their 
duty,  but  from  being  the  interpreters  of  God,  men  who  spoke 
in  his  name.  We  accordingly  find  the  term  prophet  applied 
to  all  classes  of  religious  teachers  under  the  old  dispensation. 
Of  Abraham  it  is  said,  "  He  is  a  prophet,  and  he  shall  pray 
for  thee  and  thou  .shalt  live,"  Gen.  20:  7.  The  name  is  often 
applied  to  Moses  as  the  great  interpreter  of  the  will  of  God  to 
the  Hebrews,  Deut.  18:  18;  and  the  writers  of  the  historical 
books  are  also  constantly  so  called.  The  passage  in  Ex.  7:  1 
is  peculiarly  interesting,  as  it  clearly  exhibits  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  this  word.  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  See  I  have 
made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh;  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be 
thy  prophet,"  i.  e.  he  shall  be  thy  interpreter.  In  ch.  4:  16,  it 
it  is  said,  "  He  shall  be  a  mouth  to  thee;"  and  of  Jeremiah, 
God  says,  "Thou  shalt  be  my  mouth,"  Jer.  15:  19;  compare 
Deut.  18:  IS.     Any  one,  therefore,  who  acted  as  the  mouth  of 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  497 

God,  no  matter  what  was  the  nature  of  the  communication, 
was  a  prophet.  And  this  is  also  the  sense  of  the  word  in 
the  New  Testament;*  it  is  applied  to  any  one  employed  to 
deliver  a  divine  message,  Matt.  10:  41,  13:  57.  Luke  4:  24. 
7:  26 — 29,  "  What  went  ye  out  to  see  ?  A  prophet?  yea,  I  say 
unto  you,  and  much  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is  he  of  whom 
it  is  written,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  &c."  John  4:19, 
"  Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a  prophet,"  i.  e.  an  inspired  man. 
Acts  15:  32,  "And  Judas  and  Silas,  heing  prophets,  also  them- 
selves exhorted  the  brethren  and  confirmed  them,"  1  Cor, 
12:  28,  "  God  hath  set  in  the  church,  fii'st,  apostles;  secondarily, 
prophets;  thirdl}-,  teachers;  &c,"  1  Cor,  14:  29 — 32,  "  Let  the 
prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and  let  the  other  judge.  If  «ny 
thing  be  revealed  to  another  that  sittcth  by,  let  the  first  hold 
his  peace.  For  ye  may  all  prophesy  one  by  one,  that  all  may 
learn  and  all  may  be  comforted.  For  the  spirits  of  the  pro- 
phets are  subject  to  the  prophets,"  "  If  any  man  think  himself 
to  be  a  prophet  or  spiritual  (inspired),  let  him  acknowledge, 
&c,"  From  these  and  numerous  similar  passages,  it  appears 
that  the  prophets  in  the  Christian  church  were  men  who  spoke 
under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  de- 
livered some  divine  communication  relating  to  doctrinal  truths, 
to  present  duty,  to  future  events,  &c,,  as  the  case  might  be.t 
The  point  of  distinction  between  them  and  the  apostles,  con- 

*  In  common  Greek,  also,  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  fxavTig  was 
the  immediate  receiver  of  the  divine  influence,  and  declarer  of  the  oracles,  and  the 
crPO(p'/jTr)g  was  the  interpreter.  Hence  (Xoutfuv  itpoxp-^ron  the  hiterpreters  of  the 
JMuses.  These  two  words,  however,  [hav-Ti^  and  Tfo^jy/Tris,  are  frequently  used 
indiscriminately,  the  latter  bein^  applied  to  any  person  who  spoke  under  a  divine 
influence.  As  poets  were  supposed  to  speak  under  a  certain  kind  of  inspiration, 
they  too  were  called  prophets.  Paul  used  the  word  in  this  sense  when  he  wrote  to 
Titus,  Tit.  1:  12,  "  A  prophet  of  their  own  said,  the  Crctiuis  are  always  liars,  &c." 

t  n^o;pr;Tr)g,  vates,  i.  e.  vir  divinus,  qui  atflatu  divino  saudet  et  ciii  numcn  rc- 
tegit,  quae  antea  incognita  erant,  maximc  ad  religionem  pertinentia. — Waul. 

Sunt  qui  propheliam  intelligunt  divinandi  facultatem,  quae  circa  evangelii  pri- 
mordia  in  ecclesia  vigebat.  *  «  *  *  Ego  vero  eos  sequi  malo,  qui  latius  extendunt 
hoc  nomen  ad  pcculiare  revelationis  donum,  ut  quis  dextre  ac  peritc  in  voluntate 
Dei  enarranda  munus  interpretis  obeat. — Calvin. 

On  the  nature  of  the  oifice  of  prophet,  see  Koppf.'s  Excursus  III.  appended  to 
his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians;  and  Wineii's  Kealwortcrbuch, 
under  the  word  Prnpheten.  Both  these  treatises  are  rationalistic,  yet  both  contain 
the  materials  for  a  fair  examination  of  the  subject. 

63 


498  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

sidered  as  religious  teachers,  appears  to  have  been  that  the 
inspiration  of  the  apostles  was  abiding,  they  were  the  infallible 
and  authoritative  messengers  of  Christ;  whereas  the  inspiration 
of  the  prophets  was  occasional  and  transient.  The  latter  differed 
from  the  teachers  (SiSuaxakot),  inasmuch  as  these  were  not  ne- 
cessarily inspired,  but  taught  to  others  what  they  themselves 
had  learned  from  the  scriptures  or  from  inspired  men. 

Agreeably  to  this  view  of  the  office  of  the  prophets,  we  find 
the  sacred  writers  speaking  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  as  consisting 
in  the  communication  of  divine  truth  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
intended  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  consolation.  "  Though 
I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  understand  all  mysteries  and 
all  knowledge,"  1  Cor.  12:  2;  "He  that  prophesieth  speaketh 
unto  men  to  edification,  and  exhortation,  and  comfort,"  1  Cor. 
14:  4;  "  If  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that  believeth 
not,  or  o?ie  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is  judged  of 
all,  &c."  V.  24. 

The  gift  of  which  Paul  here  speaks,  is  not,  therefore,  the 
faculty  of  predicting  future  events,  but  that  of  immediate  oc- 
casional inspiration,  leading  the  recipient  to  deliver,  as  the 
mouth  of  God,  the  particular  communication  which  he  had 
received,  whether  designed  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or 
comfort.  The  apostle  required  that  those  who  enjoyed  this 
gift  should  exercise  it  according  to  the  propo7'tion  of  faith. 
This  clause  admits  of  different  interpretations.  The  word 
{oLvaKoyia)  rendered  proportion,  may  mean  either  proportion, 
or  measure,  rule,  standard.  Classic  usage  is  rather  in  favour 
of  the  former  of  these  meanings,  &c.*  The  latter,  however,  is 
necessarily  included  in  the  former;  and  the  word  is  defined 
by  Hesychius,  measure,  canon  or  rule.  The  choice  between 
the  two  meanings  of  the  word  must  depend  on  the  sense 
given  to  the  word  faith,  and  on  the  context.  Faith  may 
here  mean  inward  confidence  or  belief;  or  it  may  mean  the  gift 
received,  i.  e.  that  which  is  confided  (to  -TrsffirfTSufj-svov) ;  or,  finally, 
that  which  is  believed,  i.  e.  truths  divinely  revealed.  If  the 
first  of  these  three  senses  be  adopted,  the  passage  means, '  Let 
him  prophesy  according  to  his  internal  convictions;  that  is,  he 

*  Passow  defines  it,  Glcichhcit,  Uebcrcinstinimuiig,  richtigcb  VerhUltniss,  Pro- 
portion. 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  499 

must  not  exceed  in  his  communication  what  he  honestly  believes 
to  have  been  divinely  communicated,  or  allow  himself  to  be 
carried  away  by  enthusiasm,  to  deliver,  as  from  God,  what  is 
really  nothing  but  his  own  thoughts.'  If  the  second  sense  (of 
iridris)  be  preferred,  the  clause  then  means,  '  Let  him  prophesy 
according  to  the  proportion  of  the  gifts  which  he  has  received;* 
i.  e.  let  every  one  speak  according  to  the  degree  and  nature  of 
the  divine  influence,  or  the  particular  revelation  imparted  to 
him.'  If,  however,  faith  here  means,  as  it  does  in  so  many 
other  places,  the  object  of  faith  or  the  truths  to  be  believed; 
(see  Gal.  1:  23.3:  23,25.  6: 10.  Eph.  4:  5.  2  Thess.  3:  5,&c.  &c.) 
then  accordiiig  to  the  analogy  signifies  agreeably  to  the  rule 
or  standard,  and  the  apostle's  direction  to  the  prophet  is,  that 
in  all  their  communications  they  are  to  conform  to  the  rule  of 
faith,  and  not  contradict  those  doctrines  which  had  been  de- 
livered by  men  wdiose  inspiration  had  been  established  by 
indubitable  evidence.  In  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage  is 
the  frequent  use  of  the  word  faith  in  the  sense  thus  assigned  to 
it.  2.  The  fact  that  similar  directions  respecting  those  who 
consider  themselves  prophets  or  inspired  persons  occur  in  other 
passages.  Thus  Paul  says,  "  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a 
prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I 
write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord;"  1  Cor.  14: 
37.  This  was  the  standard;  and  no  man  had  a  right  to  consider 
himself  inspired,  or  to  require  others  so  to  regard  him,  who  did 
not  conform  himself  to  the  instructions  of  men  whose  inspira- 
tion was  beyond  doubt.  Thus  too  the  apostle  John  commands 
Christians,  "  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  tlie  spirits  whether 
they  be  of  God;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into 
the  world,"  1  John  4:  1.  And  the  standard  by  which  these 
prophets  were  to  be  tried,  he  gives  in  v.  6,  "  We  are  of  God; 
he  that  knoweth  God,  heareth  us;  and  he  that  is  not  of  God, 
heareth  not  us.  Hereby  we  know  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the 
spirit  of  error."  It  was  obviously  necessary  that  Christians,  in 
the  age  of  immediate  inspiration,  should  have  some  means  of 
deciding  between  those  who  were  really  under  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  those  who  were  either  enthusiasts  or 
deceivers.     And  the  test  to  which  the  apostles  directed  them 

•  Pro  ratione  ejus  quod  ipsi  creditum  et  manifestatum  est. — Wetsteix. 


500  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

was  rational  and  easily  applied.  There  were  some  men  to 
whose  divine  mission  and  authority  God  had  borne  abundant 
testimony  by  "  signs  and  wonder,  and  divers  miracles,  and  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  As  God  cannot  contradict  himself,  it 
follows  that  any  thing  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  these 
men,  though  proceeding  from  one  claiming  to  be  a  prophet, 
must  be  false,  and  the  pretension  of  its  author  to  inspiration 
unfounded.  Accordingly,  the  apostle  directed  that  while  one 
prophet  spoke,  the  others  were  to  judge,  i.  e.  decide  whether 
he  spoke  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith;  and  whether  his 
inspiration  was  real,  imaginary  or  feigned.  3.  This  interpre- 
tation is  also  perfectly  suitable  to  the  context.  Paul,  after  giving 
the  general  direction  contained  in  the  preceding  verses,  as  to  the 
light  in  which  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  to  be  viewed,  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  used,  in  this  and  the  following 
verses,  gives  special  directions  with  respect  to  particular  gifts. 
Those  who  thought  themselves  prophets  should  be  careful  to 
speak  nothing  but  truth,  to  conform  to  the  standard;  those  who 
ministered  should  devote  themselves  to  their  appropriate  duties, 
&c.*  Although  this  interpretation  has  so  much  to  recommend 
it,  and  is  on  the  whole  to  be  preferred,  still  the  sense  afforded 
by  the  second  of  the  three  views  of  the  passage  mentioned 
above,  is  also  good  and  consistent  with  the  context.  Faith, 
however,  must  then  be  taken  in  the  ver}'  unusual  sense  of  "  the 
gift  or  grace  bestowed,"  quod  creditinn  est;  a  sense  which 
even  v.  3  can  hardly  authorize. 

(7)  Or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering;  or  he  that 
teache.th,  on  teaching.  The  terms  minister  and  m,inistry 
(5«axov(/g  and  ^laxovia,  deacon  and  deaconship),  are  used  in  the 

*  Npque  niihi  etiani  satis  solida  viiletur  ratio  (jiiae  objicitur,  frustra  id  dictunim 
fuisse  apostolum  iis,  qui  per  Spiritum  Dei  non  ])olerant  Christum  dicerc  anatiiema. 
Nam  quum  alibi  (1  Cor.  14  :  32),  tcstetur,  Spiritum  proplietae  prophetis  esse  sub- 
jectum,  et  jubeat  priorem,  qui  loquebatur,  tacerc,  si  cui  sedcnti  revelatum  ftierit ; 
eadem  ratione  admonere  hie  potest  eos,  qui  in  ecclesia  prophetant,  quo  suas  pro- 
phetias  ad  fidei  norniam  conforment,  necubi  aberrent  a  linea.  Fidei  nomine  sig- 
nificat  prima  religionis  axiomata,  quibus  quaecunque  doctrina  deprehcnsa  fuerit  non 
respondere,  falsitatis  sic  convincetur. — Calvin. 

Es  kaim  indess  auch  'zidTig  objective  stchen  von  der  christliclien  Lehre,  von 
wclchcr  die  'Kpa<^r\rsia  nicht  abweichen  diirfe.  Aeimlich  ermahnt  der  Apostel  die 
Thessalonichcr,  die  ■TT^o^igTsrai  nicht  gering  zu  schlitzen,  indess  doch  zu  prilfcn, 
was  daran  gut  sei  und  nur  dies  zu  behalten. — Thoixtk. 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  501 

New  Testament  both  in  a  general  and  a  restricted  sense.  In 
the  former,  they  are  employed  in  reference  to  all  classes  of  eccle- 
siastical officers,  even  the  apostles;  see  1  Cor.  3:  5.  2  Cor.  6:  4. 
Eph.  3:  7.  6:  21.  Col.  1:  7,  23.  1  Tim.  4:  6.  Acts  1:  17,  25. 
20:  24.  Rom.  11:  13.  1  Cor.  12:  5.  2  Cor.  4:  l,S:c.  &c.  In  the 
latter,  they  are  used  in  reference  to  a  particular  class  of  officers, 
to  whom  were  committed  the  management  of  the  external 
affairs  of  the  church,  the  care  of  the  poor,  attention  to  the  sick, 
&c.;  see  Acts  6:  1—3.  Phil.  1:  1.  1  Tim.  3:  S— 13,  &c.  It  is 
doubtful  in  which  of  these  senses  the  latter  of  the  above  men- 
tioned words  is  here  used  by  the  apostle,  most  probably  in  the 
restricted  sense.  The  apostle  exhorts  different  classes  of  officers 
to  attend  to  their  own  peculiar  vocation,  and  to  exercise  their 
own  gifts,  without  intruding  into  the  sphere  of  others,  or  envy- 
ing their  superior  endowments.  The  deacons,  therefore,  were 
to  attend  to  the  poor  and  the  sick,  and  not  attempt  to  exercise 
the  office  of  teachers. 

He  that  teaclicth,  on  teaching.  Teathers  are  elsewliei-e 
expressly  distinguished  ivom prophets,  1  Cor.  12:  28,  29, ''  Cod 
hath  set  some  in  the  church;  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  pro- 
phets; thirdly,  teachers.  Are  all  apostles  ?  arc  all  proplicts  ?  arc 
all  teachers  ?  are  all  workers  of  miracles  ?"  And  in  this  passage 
they  are  not  to  be  confounded,  nor  is  teaching  to  be  regarded, 
in  this  place,  as  one  part  of  prophesying.  As  remarked  above 
on  V.  6,  the  teachers  seem  to  be  distinguished  from  prophets, 
inasmuch  as  the  former  were  not  necessarily  inspired,  and  wei-e 
a  regular  and  permanent  class  of  officers.  Those  who  had  the 
gift  of  prophecy  were  to  exercise  it  aright;  those  who  were 
called  to  the  office  of  deacons  were  to  devote  themselves  to 
their  appropiate  duties;  and  those  who  had  the  gift  of  tcacliiiig 
were  to  teach. 

(8)  He  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation.  The  word  {'xaon- 
xaksu))  here  used  means  to  invite,  exhort  and  to  comfort.  Our 
translators  have  probably  selected  the  most  appropriate  sense. 
There  was  probably  no  distinct  class  of  officers  called  exhorters, 
as  distinguished  from  teachers,  but  as  the  apostle  is  spcakmg  ol 
gifts  as  well  as  offices  (both  are  included  in  the  word  ya'Ja^^'-'^)-' 
his  direction  is,  that  he  who  had^the  gift  of  teaching  should 
teach,  and  that  he  who  had  a  gift  for  exhortation  should  be  con- 
tent to  exhort. 


503  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

He  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity ;  ke  that 
rnleth,  with  diligence;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheer- 
fulness. These  directions  have  reference  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  duties  of  church  officers  and  of  pi'ivate  Christians 
ought  to  be  performed.  In  this  connexion,  the  former  no 
doubt  are  principally,  though  not  exclusively  intended.  He  that 
giveth,  loith  simplicity.  This  direction,  considered  in  refer- 
ence to  the  deacons,  whom,  no  doubt,  Paul  had  principally  in 
view,  contemplates  their  duty  of  imparting  or  distributing 
to  the  necessity  of  the  saints.  This  duty  they  are  required  to 
perform  with  simplicity,  i.  e.  with  purity  of  motive,  free  from 
all  improper  designs.  This  same  word  is  rendered  singleness 
of  heart  in  Eph.  6:  5.  Col.  3:  22,  and  occurs,  in  the  same 
sense,  in  the  phrase  "  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity,"  2  Cor. 
1:  12.  Considered  in  reference  to  private  Christians,  this  clause 
may  be  rendered  he  that  giveth,  with  liberality;  see  2  Cor. 
8:  2.  9:  11,  13. 

He  that  ruleth,  with  diligence.  Here  again  the  right  dis- 
charge of  ecclesiastical  duties  is  principally  intended;  1  Thess. 
5:  12,  "We  beseech  you  brethren  to  know  (esteem,  love) 
them  that  are  over  you  in  the  Lord;"  1  Tim.  5:  17,  "The 
elders  that  rule  well."  Some  of  the  presbyters  were  teachers 
and  others  rulers,  according  to  their  gifts.  Those  who  were 
called  to  exercise  the  office  of  ruler  were  required  to  do  it 
(Jv  tfaouiJy))  with  diligence,  i.  e.  with  attention  and  zeal.  This  is 
opposed  to  inertness  and  carelessness.  The  government  of  the 
church,  in  correcting  abuses,  preventing  disorders,  and  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  discipline,  calls  for  constant  vigilance  and  fidelity. 

He  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheeifulness.  As  the  former 
direction  (he  that  giveth,  with  simplicity)  had  reference  to  the 
care  of  the  poor,  this  relates  to  the  care  of  the  sick  and  afflicted. 
These  were  the  two  great  departments  of  the  deacons'  duties. 
The  former  was  to  be  discharged  with  honesty,  this  with 
cheerfulness;  not  as  a  matter  of  constraint,  but  with  alacrity 
and  kindness.  On  this  the  value  of  any  service  rendered  to  the 
children  of  sori'ow  mainly  depends. 

Doctrines. 
1.  The  great  principle  that  truth  is  in  order  to  holiness, 
which  is  so  frequently  taught  in  the  scriptures,  is  plainly  im- 


ROMANS  12:  1—8.  503 

plied  in  this  passage.  All  the  doctrines  of  justification,  grace, 
election  and  final  salvation,  taught  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
epistle,  are  made  the  foundation  for  the  practical  duties  enjoined 
in  this,  V.  1. 

2.  The  first  great  duty  of  redeemed  sinners  is  the  dedication 
of  themselves  to  God.  This  consecration  must  be  entire,  of 
the  body  as  well  as  the  soul;  it  must  be  constant  and  according 
to  his  will,  V.  1. 

3.  Regeneration  is  a  renewing  of  the  mind,  evincing  itself  in 
a  transformation  of  the  whole  character,  and  leading  to  the  know- 
ledge and  approbation  of  whatever  is  acceptable  to  God,  v.  2. 

4.  God  is  the  giver  of  all  good,  of  honours  and  offices  as  well 
of  talents  and  graces;  and  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours  he 
renders  to  every  man  according  to  his  own  will,  vs.  3,  6. 

5.  Christians  are  one  body  in  Christ.  This  unity  is  not  only 
consistent  with  great  diversity  of  gifts,  but  necessarily  implies 
it;  as  the  body  is  one  from  the  union  of  various  members  de- 
signed for  the  performance  of  various  functions,  vs.  4,  5. 

6.  The  different  offices  of  the  church  are  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  are  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  body,  and 
not  for  the  advantage  of  those  who  hold  them,  vs.  6 — 8. 

Remarks. 

1.  The  effect  produced  upon  us  by  the  mercies  of  God,  in 
redemption,  and  in  his  providence,  affords  an  excellent  criterion 
of  character.  If  they  lead  us  to  devote  ourselves  to  his  service, 
they  produce  the  result  for  which  they  were  designed,  and  we 
may  conclude  that  we  are  of  the  number  of  his  children.  But 
if  they  produce  indifference  to  duty,  and  cherish  the  idea  that 
we  are  the  special  favourites  of  heaven,  or  that  we  may  sin  with 
impunity,  it  is  an  evidence  that  our  hearts  are  not  right  in  the 
sight  of  God,  V.  1. 

2.  While  Christians  should  remember  that  the  service  wliich 
they  are  called  upon  to  render  is  a  rational  service,  pertaining 
to  the  soul,  they  should  not  suppose  that  it  consists  merely  in 
the  secret  exercises  of  the  heart.  The  whole  man  and  the  whole 
life  must  be  actively  and  constantly  devoted  to  God,  v.  1. 

3.  Those  professors  of  religion  who  are  conformed  to  the 
world  cannot  have  experienced  that  renewing  of  tbe  mind, 
which  produces  a  transformation  of  character,  v.  2. 


504  ROMANS  12:  1—8. 

4.  Self-conceit  and  ambition  are  the  besetting  sins  of  men 
entrusted  with  power,  or  highly  gifted  in  any  respect,  as  dis- 
content and  envy  are  those  to  which  persons  of  inferior  station 
or  gifts  are  inost  exposed.  These  evil  feeling,  so  ofiensive  to 
God,  would  be  subdued  if  men  would  properly  lay  to  heart 
that  peculiar  advantages  are  bestowed  according  to  the  divine 
pleasure;  that  they  are  designed  to  advance  the  glory  of  God, 
and  good  of  his  church,  and  not  the  honour  or  emolument  of 
those  that  receive  them;  and  that  very  frequently  those  which 
are  least  attractive  in  the  sight  of  men,  are  the  most  important 
in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  here  as  in  the  human  frame;  not  the 
most  comely  parts  are  the  most  valuable,  but  those  which  are 
the  least  so.  The  vital  parts  of  our  system  never  attract  the 
praise  of  men,  and  are  never  the  source  of  vanity  or  pride,  v.  3. 

5.  As  Christians  are  one  body  in  Christ,  they  should  feel 
their  mutual  dependence  and  their  common  interest  in  their 
head,  from  whom  life,  intelligence,  enjoyment  and  every  good 
comes.  They  should  sympathize  in  each  other's  joys  and  sor- 
rows; the  hand  should  not  envy  the  eye,  nor  the  eye  despise 
the  foot.  How  can  they,  who  are  destitute  of  this  common 
feeling  with  their  fellow  Christians,  be  partakers  of  that  Spirit 
by  which  true  believers  are  constituted  really  and  not  merely 
nominally  one  ?  vs.  4,  5. 

6.  Real  honour  consists  in  doing  well  what  God  calls  us  to 
do,  and  not  in  the  possession  of  high  offices  or  great  talents, 
vs.  6—8. 

7.  No  man's  usefulness  is  increased  by  going  out  of  his 
sphere.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  because  one  possession 
or  employment  may,  in  itself  considered,  afford  better  oppor- 
tunity of  doing  good  than  another,  that,  therefore,  any  or 
every  man  would  be  more  useful  in  the  one  than  in  the  other. 
The  highest  improvement  of  the  individual,  and  the  greatest 
good  of  the  whole,  are  best  secured  by  each  being  and  doing 
what  God  sees  fit  to  determine.  If  all  were  the  same  member, 
where  were  the  body  ?  '  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion, 
but  of  order,  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints,'  vs.  6 — 8. 

8.  No  amount  of  learning,  no  superiority  of  talent,  nor  even 
the  pretension  to  inspiration,  can  justify  a  departure  from  the 
analogy  of  faith,  i.  c.  from  the  truths  taught  by  men  to  whose 
inspiration   God    has   borne   witness.      All    teachers  must   be 


ROMANS  12:  9—21.  505 

brought  to  this  standard;  and  even  if  an  angel  from  heaven 
should  preach  in  contradiction  to  the  scriptures,  he  should  be 
regarded  as  anathema,  Gal.  1:8.  It  is  a  matter  of  constant 
gratitude  that  we  have  such  a  standard  whereby  to  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  be  of  God.  Ministers  of  Christ  should  see  to  it, 
that  they  do  not  incur  the  curse  which  Paul  denounces  on  those 
who  preach  another  gospel,  v.  6. 

9.  Private  Christians,  but  especially  ecclesiastical  officers,  are 
required  to  discharge  their  respective  duties  with  singleness  of 
heart,  and  in  the  exercise  of  those  virtues  which  the  peculiar 
nature  of  their  vocation  may  demand,  vs.  6 — 8. 


CHAP.  12:  9—21. 

Having  treated  of  those  duties  which  belong  more  especially 
to  the  officers  of  the  church,  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers 
generally  to  the  exercise  of  various  Christian  virtues.  There 
is  no  logical  arrangement  observed  in  this  part  of  the  chapter, 
except  that  the  general  exhortation  to  love  precedes  the  precepts 
which  relate  to  those  exercises  which  are,  for  the  most  part,  but 
different  manifestations  of  this  primary  grace.  The  love  of  the 
Christian  must  be  sincere,  and  lead  to  the  avoiding  of  evil  and 
the  pursuit  of  good,  v.  9.  It  must  produce  brotherly  affection 
and  humility  or  kindness,  v.  10;  diligence  and  devotion,  v.  11; 
resignation,  patience  and  prayer,  v.  12;  charity  and  hospitality, 
v.  13;  forgiveness  of  injuries,  v.  14;  sympathy  with  the  joys 
and  sorrows  of  others,  v.  15;  concord  and  lowliness  of  mind, 
V.  16;  and  a  constant  endeavour  to  return  good  for  evil, 
vs.  17—21. 

Commentary. 

(9)  Let  love  be  without  dissimulation,  i.  e.  sincere,  not 
hypocritical,  and  not  consisting  in  words  merely.  The  love 
here  intended,  is  probably  love  to  all  men,  and  not  to  Chris- 
tians exclusively,  as  in  v.  10,  brotherly  affection  is  particularly 
specified.  Much  less  is  love  to  God  the  idea  meant  to  be  ex- 
pressed. 

Abhor  that  ivhich  is  evil;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good. 
The  words  rendered   to  abhor  (d.'Kod^v'yiu)  and  to  cleave  to 

64 


506  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

(xoXXaofAai)  are  peculiarly  forcible,  and  express  the  highest  degree 
of  hatred  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  persevering  devotion  on  the 
other.  The  latter  word,  in  the  active  form,  properly  means  to 
glue,  and,  in  the  middle,  to  attach  one's  self  to  any  person  or 
thing.  The  words  evil  and  good,  in  this  passage,  may  be  un- 
derstood of  moral  good  and  evil;  and  the  exhortation  be  con- 
sidered as  a  general  direction  to  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other. 
But  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  out  of  regard  to  the 
context,  take  the  terms  in  a  restricted  sense,  making  the  former 
mean  injurious,  and  the  latter  kind*  The  sense  of  the  whole 
verse  would  then  be,  '  Let  love  be  sincere;  strive  to  avoid  what 
is  injurious  to  others,  and  earnestly  endeavour  to  do  whatever 
is  kind  and  useful.'  As  the  words  themselves  admit  of  either 
of  these  interpretations,  the  choice  between  them  depends  upon 
the  context.  The  latter  is,  on  this  ground,  perhaps,  to  be  pre- 
ferred. 

(10)  Be  kindly  affectioned  one  to  another  with  brotherly 
love,  in  honour  preferring  one  another.  '  As  to  brotherly 
love,  be  kindly  affectioned  one  towards  another.'  This  exhor- 
tation seems  to  have  special  reference  to  Christians.  The  word 
((piXo'tfTo^yog)  used  by  the  apostle,  expresses  properly  the  strong 
natural  affection  between  parents  and  children  (tfTo^^v)),  but  is 
applied  also  to  tender  affection  of  any  kind.  Here,  no  doubt, 
the  idea  is,  that  Christians  should  love  each  other  w  ith  the  same 
sincerity  and  tenderness  as  if  they  were  the  nearest  relatives. 

In  honour  preferring  one  another.  This  passage,  thus 
translated,  cannot  be  understood  otherwise  than  as  an  exhorta- 
tion to  humility;  and  such  is  the  interpretation  generally  given 
to  it.  But  the  word  (ir^ovi^srcr^ai)  rendered  to  prefer  never  occurs 
in  this  sense  elsewhere.  It  means  properly  to  go  before,  to 
lead,  and  then,  figuratively,  to  set  an  exainple.  And  the  word 
translated  honour  may  mean  deference,  respect,  and  even 
kindness  [ohservantia  et  omnia  humanitatis  officia  quae 
aliis  debemus.  Schleusner).  The  sense  of  the  clause  may  then 
be,  '  as  to  respect  and  kindness  (rifjiTJ)  going  before  each  other, 
or  setting  an  example  one  to  another.'  This  interpretation, 
which  is  given  by  most  of  the  recent  commentators,  is  not  only 

•  Voces  boni  et  mali  non  habent  generalrm  significatum ;  sed  pro  malitiosa  ini- 
quitate,  qua  nocelur  hominibus,  malum  posuit ;  bonum  autem  pro  benignitate,  qua 
ipsi  juvantur. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  12:  9—21.  507 

better  suited  to  the  meaning  of  the  words,  but  also  to  the  con- 
text. The  idea  is,  that  Christians  should  not  only  love  one 
another,  but  endeavour  to  excel  each  other  in  all  acts  of  mutual 
respect  and  kindness.* 

(11)  Not  slothful  in  business;  fervent  i7i  spirit;  serving  the 
Lord.  The  love  to  which  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers  is 
not  inactive  or  cold;  on  the  contrary,  it  manifests  itself  in  dili- 
gence, zeal  and  devotion  to  God.  The  word  rendered  business 
{(JitovSt])  properly  means  haste,  zeal,  activity/.  The  exhortation 
has  not  the  reference  which  our  version  would  naturally  sug- 
gest, viz.  to  the  active  performance  of  our  several  vocations;  it 
refers  rather  to  religious  activity.  '  As  to  activity  or  diligence 
(i.  e.  what  relates  to  this  point)  do  not  grow  weary  or  be 
indolent;  on  the  contrary,  be  fervent  in  spirit.'  The  word 
spirit  is  by  many  understood  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  it  most  natu- 
rally refers  to  the  mind;  compare  Acts  13:  25,  where  it  is  said 
of  Apollos  "  being  fervent  in  spirit  (i.  e.  zealous),  he  spake  and 
taught  diligently."  This  clause,  therefore,  stands  in  opposition 
to  the  preceding.  Instead  of  being  inactive,  we  should  be 
zealous. 

Serving  the  Lord,  i.  e.  doing  service  to  the  Lord,  influenced 
in  our  activity  and  zeal  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ.t  This 
member  of  the  sentence  thus  understood,  describes  the  motive 
from  which  zeal  and  diligence  should  proceed.  Compare  Eph. 
6:  5 — S,  especially  the  expressions  as  unto  Christ,  as  the 
servants  of  Christ,  as  to  the  Lord,  &c. ;  and  Col.  3:  22,  23. 
Instead  oi  serving  the  Lord,  there,  is  another  reading,  according 
to  which  the  passage  must  be  rendered  serving  the  timet 
(tempori  servientes.  Calvin),  i.  e.  making  the  most  of  every 
opportunity  (see  Eph.  5:  16);  or,  as  others  understand  it,  'bear- 

*  The  Vulgate  translates  the  clause  thus,  Honore  invicem  praevcnientcs.  Jas- 
pis,  Humanitate  mutua  sese  officiis  debitis  pracstandis  alter  altcium  vincit.  Much 
to  the  same  effect,  Flatt,  Tholcck  and  others. 

■(-  Domino  servire  omnia  quidam  officia  complectitur  :  at  hie  non  docet  Paulus, 
quid  sit  agendum,  sed  quomodo,  ex  animo,  sincere,  aperte,  candide,  tanquam  Domi- 
no Jesu  Christo,  qui  omnia  videt,  qui  rcnes  et  corda  scrutatur,  servientes. 

I  Kaif-w  instead  of  xufi'w  is  read  only  in  the  MSS.  D.  F.  G.  All  the  other 
MSS.  and  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Vulgate  and  Syriac  versions  have  xu^i'w. 
Mill  and  Griesbach  prefer  the  former;  but  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Knapp,  Lachmann, 
the  latter.  This  diversity  of  reading  is  not  surprizing,  as  Kil  was  a  frequent  con- 
traction both  for  xu^i'w  and  xaifw. 


508  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

ing  what  you  are  called  to  bear,  submit  to  circumstances.'  But 
the  expression  io  he  time  servers  (temporibus  servire)  is 
generally  used  in  a  bad  sense.  The  external  authority  is  greatly 
in  favour  of  the  reading  on  which  our  version  {serving  the 
Lord)  is  founded,  and  it  gives  a  sense  much  more  suitable  to 
the  context. 

(12)  Rejoicing  in  hope;  patient  in  tribulation;  continu- 
ing instant  in  prayer.  These  exhortations  refer  to  nearly 
related  duties;  Christians  are  to  be  joyful,  patient  and  prayer- 
ful. However  adverse  their  circumstances,  hope,  patience  and 
prayer  are  not  only  duties,  but  the  richest  sources  of  consola- 
tion and  support.  '  Rejoicing  on  account  of  hope,  or  in  the 
joyful  expectation  of  future  good.'  This  hope  of  salvation  is 
the  most  effectual  means  of  producing  patience  under  present 
afflictions;  for  if  we  feel  "that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall 
be  revealed  in  us,"  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  bear  them  patiently. 
Intercourse  with  God,  however,  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of 
this  and  all  other  virtues,  and  therefore  the  apostle  immediately 
adds  continuing  instant  in  prayer.  The  original  could  hard- 
ly be  better  translated ;  as  the  Greek  term  (cr^oCxa^Ts^su,  intentus 
sum  rei)  expresses  the  idea  of  perseverence  and  ardour  in  the 
prosecution  of  any  object.  There  are  no  attributes  of  accepta- 
ble prayer  more  frequently  presented  in  the  scriptures  than 
those  here  referred  to,  viz.  perseverance  and  fervour,  which, 
from  their  nature,  imply  faith  in  the  ability  and  willingness  of 
God  to  grant  us  needed  good,  Acts  1:  14.  G:  4.  Eph.  6:  18, 
&c.  &c. 

(13)  Distributing  to  the  necessity^  of  saints;  given  to  hos- 
pitality. These  virtues  are  the  immediate  fruits  of  the  love 
enjoined  in  vs.  9,  10.  The  word  rendered  to  distribute  (xoivwvsu)) 
signifies,  intransitively,  to  become  a  partaker  ivith;  and,  tran- 
sitively, to  cause  others  to  partake  ivith  us,  to  communicate 
to.  It  is  commonly  followed  by  a  dative  of  the  person  to  Avhom 
the  communication  is  made.  Gal.  6:6.  In  this  case  the  con- 
struction may  be  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  verses,  '  as  to 

*  Instead  of  pfgeiais,  D.  F.  G.  and  some  Latin  MSS.  and  fathers  read  fxve/aig, 
which  Mill  prefers,  but  it  can  hardly  afford  a  good  sense;  'contributing  to  the 
remembrance  of  the  saints'  is  an  unexampled  phrase  to  signify  'be  mindful  of 
them.' 


ROMANS  12:9— 21.  509 

the  necessity  of  the  saints  be  communicative;'  or  ^  give  to  the 
necessity  of  the  saints,  sharing  with  them,  i.  e.  communicating 
to  them;'  see  Wahl,  p.  845.  As  intimately  connected  with 
this  injunction,  the  apostle  adds  given  to  hospitality,  as  our 
translators  aptly  render  the  strong  expression  (tJiixovTSg)  of  the 
original.  The  value  which  the  early  Christians  placed  upon 
the  virtue  of  hospitality  is  plain  from  Paul's  enumerating  it 
among  the  requisite  qualifications  of  a  bishop,  Tit.  1 :  8.  Du- 
ring times  of  persecution,  and  before  the  general  institution  of 
houses  of  entertainment,  there  was  peculiar  necessity  for  Chris- 
tians to  entertain  strangers.  As  such  houses  are  still  rarely  to  be 
met  with  in  the  east,  this  duty  continues  to  be  there  regarded 
as  one  of  the  most  sacred  character. 

(14)  Bless  them  which  persecute  you;  bless,  and  curse 
not.  The  exercise  of  love,  and  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
benevolence,  are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  saints  or  people  of 
God,  but  the  same  spirit  is  to  be  manifested  towards  our  ene- 
mies. The  word  (suXo^s'w)  rendered  to  bless,  signifies  both  to 
pray  for  good  to  any  one  and  to  do  good;  here,  from  the  con- 
text, the  former  meaning  is  to  be  preferred,  as  it  is  opposed  to 
cursing,  which  signifies  to  imjwecate  evil  on  any  one.  The 
command,  therefore,  is  that,  so  far  from  wishing  or  praying 
that  evil  may  overtake  our  persecutors  and  enemies,  we  must 
sincerely  desire  and  pray  for  their  good.  It  is  not  sufficient  to 
avoid  returning  evil  for  evil,  nor  even  to  banish  vindictive  teel- 
ings;  we  must  be  able  sincerely  to  desire  their  happiness.  How 
hard  this  is  for  corrupt  human  nature,  every  one  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  his  own  heart  well  knows.*  Yet  this  is  the 
standard  of  Christian  temper  and  character  exhibited  in  the 
scriptures,  Matt.  5:  44. 

*  Ardua  res  est,  fateor,  et  naturae  hominis  penitus  contraria ;  sed  nihil  tani  ar- 
duuni,  quod  Hon  virtute  Dei  superctur,  quae  nobis  nunquam  deerif,  modo  ne  ipsani 
invocare  negligaraus.  Et  quanquam  vix  unura  repcrias  qui  tantos  in  lege  Dei  pro- 
gressus  fecerit,  ut  praeceptum  istud  impleat ;  nemo  tanicn  fdium  Dei  jartare  se 
potest,  aut  Christiani  nomine  gloriari,  qui  non  animum  istum  ex  parte  induent,  et 
cum  affectu  adverso  quotidie  pugnet.  Dixi  hoc  esse  difficilius  quam  remit  tcrc  vm- 
dictam,  ubi  quis  laesus  fuerit.  Quidam  enim  licet  raanus  contincant,  neque  etiam 
agentur  nocendi  libidinc,  cuperent  tamcn  aliunde  hostibus  suis  accidere  cladem  vel 
damnum.  Deus  autem  verbo  suo  non  tantum  manus  coercet  a  maleficus,  sed  ama- 
rulentos  quoque  affectus  in  animis  domat ;  neque  id  modo,  sed  etiam  vult  de  eorum 
salute  esse  soUicilos  qui  nos  injuste  vexando  sibi  exitium  accersunt. — Caitib". 


510  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

(15)  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with 
them  that  iveep.  Love  produces  not  only  the  forgiveness  of 
enemies,  but  a  general  sympathy  in  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  our 
fellow  men,  and  especially  of  our  fellow  Christians.  The  dis- 
position here  enjoined  is  the  very  opposite  of  a  selfish  indiffer- 
ence to  any  interests  but  our  own.  The  gospel  requires  that 
we  should  feel  and  act  under  the  impression  that  all  men  are 
brethren,  that  we  have  a  common  nature,  a  common  Father, 
and  a  common  destiny.  How  lovely  is  genuine  sympathy! 
How  much  like  Christ  is  the  man  who  feels  the  sorrows  and 
joys  of  others,  as  though  they  were  his  own! 

(16)  Be  of  the  same  rnind  one  towards  another;  mind  not 
high  things,  but  condescend  to  men  of  low  estate.  Be  not 
wise  in  your  own  conceits.  The  phrase  (to  auro  (p^ov£?v)  used 
by  the  apostle  expresses  the  general  idea  of  concord,  unanimi- 
ty; whether  of  opinion  or  feeling  depends  on  the  context;  see 
2  Cor.  13:  11.  Phil.  2:  2.  Rom.  15:  5.  Here  the  latter  idea  is 
the  prominent  one.  '  Be  of  the  same  mind,'  i.  e.  be  united  in 
feeling,  interests  and  object,  let  there  be  no  discord  or  disagree- 
ment. This  idea  is  then  amplified  in  the  following  clauses;  do 
not  be  aspiring,  but  be  humble.  Ambition  and  contempt  for 
lowly  persons  or  pursuits,  are  the  states  of  mind  most  incon- 
sistent with  that  union  of  heart  by  which  all  Christians  should 
be  united.*  Erasmus  and  others  understand  this  clause  to 
mean,  '  Think  of  others  as  well  as  you  do  of  yourselves,'  {nemo 
putet  alium  se  minorem).  But  this  gives  too  restricted  a 
sense,  and  is  no  better  suited  to  the  context  than  the  common 
interpretation  given  above.  The  command  is,  that  we  should 
be  united;  feeling  towards  others  as  we  would  have  them  feel 
towards  us. 

Mind  not  high  things,  i.  e.  do  not  aspire  after  them,  do  not 
desire  and  seek  them;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  here  em- 
ployed in  ch.  8:  5.  Col.  3:  2,  (ra  avw  (p^ovsw-s).  But  condescend 
to  men  of  low  estate.  The  general  idea  expressed  by  these 
two  clauses  is  obviously  this,  '  Be  not  high-minded,  but  hum- 
ble.' The  precise  meaning  of  the  latter,  however,  is  a  matter 
of  much   doubt.      The  word  (rfuva^a^'w)  rendered  condescend 

*  Quo  circa  illud  to  «uto  non  intclligo  idem  quod  alii  Ac  nobis  sentiunt,  sed 
idem  quod  nos  dc  nobis  ip?i  scnfimus,  vel  quod  alios  dc  nobis  sentire  postulainus. — 
Dk  BiiAis. 


ROMANS  12:  9— 21.  511 

properly  means,  in  the  passive  or  middle  voice,  to  allow  one's 
self  to  be  carried  along  with  others,  i.  e.  influenced  by  them, 
as  in  Gal.  2:  13,  "Insomuch  as  Barnabas  also  was  (allowed 
himself  to  be)  carried  away  with  their  dissimulation."  And 
2  Peter  3:  7,  "  Beware  lest  ye  also,  being  led  away  with  the 
error  of  the  wicked,  fall  from  your  own  steadfastness."  Many 
retain  this  sense  of  the  word  here,  and  consider  the  exhortation 
to  be,  '  not  to  withdraw  themselves  from  their  unfortunate 
brethren,  but  to  allow  themselves  to  be  carried  along  with  them 
before  the  judgment  seat  or  into  their  various  trials.'  But  this 
seemiS  to  be  pressing  the  meaning  of  the  word,  in  this  case,  too 
far,  as  this  interpretation  is  not  suitable  to  the  context.  Others, 
therefore,  understand  the  word  in  an  unusual  sense,  it  is  true,  but 
still  in  one  nearly  allied  to  the  other  meaning,  viz.  to  associate 
with:  '  Do  not  be  aspiring,  but  associate  with  the  lowly.'  This 
gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  one  consistent  with  the  con- 
text. The  Greek  commentators  and  our  translators  express 
much  the  same  idea,  '  Do  not  be  high-minded,  but  condescend 
to  the  lowly,'  i.  e.  sympathize  with  them,  put  yourselves  on  a 
par  with  them.'*  The  words  {toT^  raxsivorj)  rendered  to  men  of 
low  estate,  admit  of  being  taken  as  neuter,  and  translated  lowly 
things.  This  would  suit  well  the  former  part  of  the  sentence, 
*  Mind  not  high  things,  but  condescend  to  humble  affairs,  i.  e. 
be  humble.'  So  Calvint  and  many  others.  But  this  interpre- 
tation is  not  consistent  with  the  usage  of  the  Greek  terms.  We 
can  say  in  English,  'condescend  to  humble  things,'  but  the 
original  word  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of  following  after,  or 
practising  any  thing  good.  The  interpretation  adopted  by  our 
translators  is  therefore,  on  the  whole,  to  be  preferred.  '  Do  not 
aspire  after  high  things,  but  condescend  to,  and  associate  with 
the  humble.' 

Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceits.     This  precept  is  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  preceding,  since  ambition  and  con- 


*  Demitte  animos  vestros,  atque  eo  loco  vos  esse  existimate,  quo  sunt,  qui  tan- 
quam  humiles  contemnuntur, — Wetstein. 

\  Non  arroganter  de  vobis  sentientes,  seel  humilibus  vos  accommotlantcs.  Voceiu 
himilibus  in  neutro  genere  accipio,  ut  antithesis  ita  compleatur.  Hie  ergo  danina- 
tur  ambitio,  et  quae  sub  magnanimitatis  nomine  se  insinuat  animi  elatio  :  siquidem 
praecipua  fidelium  virtus  moderatio  est,  vel  potius  submissio,  quae  iionorem  semper 
malit  aliis  cedeie  quani  praeripere. 


512  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

tempt  of  others  generally  arise  from  overweening  ideas  of  our 
own  persons  and  attainments.  No  species  of  pride  is  more 
insidious  or  more  injurious  than  the  pride  of  intellect,  or  a  fan- 
cied superiority  to  those  around  us,  which  leads  to  a  contempt 
of  their  opinions,  and  a  confident  reliance  upon  ourselves.  The 
temper  which  the  gospel  requires  is  that  of  a  little  child,  docile, 
diffident  and  humble;  see  ch.  11:  25.  Prov.  3:  7.  Is.  7:  21. 

(17)  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Provide  things 
honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Paul  having,  in  the  preceding 
verses,  enjoined  the  duties  of  love,  condescension  and  kindness 
towards  all  men,  comes,  in  this  and  the  following  passages,  to 
forbid  the  indulgence  of  a  contrary  disposition,  especially  of  a 
spirit  of  retaliation  and  revenge.  The  general  direction  in  the 
first  clause  is,  not  to  retaliate;  which  is  but  a  lower  exercise  of 
the  virtue  afterward  enjoined  in  the  command  to  "  overcome 
evil  with  good," 

Provide  things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Our  trans- 
lation of  this  clause  is  not  very  happy,  as  it  suggests  an  idea 
foreign  to  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Paul  does  not  mean  to 
direct  us  to  make  provision  for  ourselves  or  families  in  an 
honest  manner,  which  is  probably  the  sense  commonly  attached 
to  the  passage  hy  the  English  reader,  but  to  act  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  command  the  confidence  and  good  opinion  of  men. 
In  this  view,  the  connexion  of  this  with  the  preceding  member 
of  the  verse  is  obvious.  '  We  must  not  recompense  evil  for 
evil,  but  act  in  such  a  way  as  to  commend  ourselves  to  the  con- 
science of  all  men.'  There  should  not,  therefore,  be  a  period 
after  the  word  evil,  since  this  clause  assigns  a  motive  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined  in  the  first.  The  word  (ir^ovo- 
ErffSai)  rendered  to  provide,  signifies  also  to  attend  to,  to  care 
for.*  The  sense  then  is,  '  Do  not  resent  injuries,  having  regard 
to  the  good  opinion  of  men,'  i.  e.  let  a  regard  to  the  honour  of 
religion  and  your  own  character  prevent  the  returning  of  evil  for 
evil.  Thus  Paul  (2  Cor.  8:  20,21)  saysof  himself,  that  he  wished 
others  to  be  associated  with  him  in  the  disti'ibution  of  the  alms 
of  the  church,  "having  regard  for  what  was  right  ("Tr^ovoot/fjojvoi 


*  nfovo£Ofi.ai  nperatn  do,  ut  xaXa  avJj<jriov  Tivog,  i.  e.  iis,  quae  honesta  sunt 
juflirc  aliquo,  i.  c.  oporam  dare  rebus,  quae  jilaccnt  alicui  cl  gratiam  ejus  conciliant. 
-Wahi.. 


ROMANS  12:  9—21.  513 

)taXa),  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  also  in  the  sight  of 
men,"* 

(18)  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live  peace- 
ably with  all  men.  The  retaliation  of  injuries  necessarily 
leads  to  contention  and  strife,  while  peace  is  the  natural  result 
of  a  forgiving  disposition.  The  command  in  this  verse,  there- 
fore, is  naturally  connected  with  that  contained  in  v.  17.  Sa 
far  from  resenting  every  offence,  we  should  do  all  we  can  to 
live  at  peace  with  all  men.  This,  however,  is  not  always  in 
our  own  power,  and,  therefore,  the  apostle  says,  as  much  as 
lieth  in  you,  i.  e.  as  far  as  it  depends  on  you,  let  peace  be  cul- 
tivated. This  Paul  considers,  however,  as  a  result  not  always 
to  be  attained,  for  he  says,  if  it  be  possible  live  peaceably  with 
all  men.  From  the  wickedness  of  others  this  is  often  impos- 
sible; and  Paul's  own  example  shows  that  he  was  far  from 
thinking  that  either  truth  or  principle  was  to  be  sacrificed  for 
the  preservation  of  peace.  His  whole  life  was  an  active  and 
ardent  contention  against  error  and  sin.  The  precept,  how- 
ever, is  plain,  and  the  duty  important.  As  far  as  it  can  be  done 
consistently  with  higher  obligations  and  more  important  inte- 
rests, we  must  endeavour  to  promote  peace,  and  for  this  end 
avoid  giving  offencet  and  avenging  injuries. 

(19)  Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves;  but  rather 
give  place  unto  wrath,  &.c.  This  is  a  repetition  and  amplifi- 
cation of  the  previous  injunction,  not  to  recompense  evil  for 
evil.  There  are  three  interpretations  of  tlie  phrase  give  place 
unto  wrath  which  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  According  to- 
the  first,  the  wrath  here  intended  is  tliat  of  the  injured  party, 
and  to  give  place  to  is  made  to  signify,  to  allow  it  to  pass,  i.  e. 


*  Summa  est,  dandfim  sedulo  esse  operam,  ut  nostra  intrpjitate  omncs  aedificen- 
tur.  Ut  enim  necessaria  est  nobis  conscientiae  innocentia  coram  Deo ;  ita  famae 
integritas  apud  homines  non  est  negligenda.  Nam  si  Deum  in  bonis  nostris  operi- 
bus  glorificari  convenit,  tantundem  decedit  ejus  gloriae,  ubi  nihil  laude  dignum  in 
nobis  homines  conspiciunt. — Calvin. 

f  Der  Christ  soil  nicht  Anstoss  suchen,  er  soil  nicht  durch  das,  was  nicht  aus 
dem  christlichen  Gcist  gekommen  ist,  Anstoss  veranlassan.  Daher  spricht  der 
Eridser  den  fAaxa^itTfjiog  nur  iiber  diejenigcn,  die  um  sei'jies  jYamens  wiiien  ver- 
folgt  werden.  '  Tlie  Christian  should  not  seek  oflence,  nor  should  he  occasion  it 
by  any  thing  which  does  not  proceed  from  a  Christian  spirit.  The  Redeemer, 
therefore,  pronounces  a  blessing  only  upon  those  who  are  persecuted  for  his  sak-e* 
— Tholvck. 

65 


514  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

let  it  go,  do  not  cherish  or  indulge  it.  But  this  is  in  direct 
contradiction  to  the  common  and  proper  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
which  signifies  to  give  free  scope  to;  and  no  example  of  a  con- 
trary usage  is  adduced.  The  second  interpretation  refers  the 
ivrath  to  the  injurer.  The  meaning  then  is,  '  Do  not  avenge 
yourselves,  but  rather  yield  [cedite  irae)  or  submit  to  the  anger 
of  your  enemies.'  This  is  consistent  with  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  phrase  to  give  place,  i.  e.  to  get  out  of  the  way;  and 
Schoettgen  says  that  the  Jewish  writers  use  the  correspond- 
ing Hebrew  phrase  (Dip!p  |0|)  in  the  sense  of  avoiding;  of  this 
usage,  however,  he  gives  no  example.  It  is  certainly  contrary 
to  the  uniform  scriptural  usage  of  the  expression,  which  is  never 
employed  to  convey  this  idea,  but  uniformly  means,  as  just 
stated,  to  give  room  to,  to  allow  free  exercise  to  any  person  or 
thing;  see  Eph.  4:  27,  "  Neither  give  place  to  the  devil."  The 
third  interpretation,  therefore,  according  to  which  it  is  the 
wrath  of  God  that  is  here  intended,  is  the  only  one  consistent 
with  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  or  with  the  context.  '  Dearly 
beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves,  leave  that  matter  to  God;  it  is 
his  prerogative  to  take  vengeance,  but  do  you  overcome  evil 
with  good.'  The  passage,  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay 
saith  the  Lord,  is  quoted  from  Deut.  32 :  35,  and  is  obviously 
cited  to  show  the  propriety  of  the  command  to  leave  vengeance 
to  God,  and  not  attempt  to  take  it  into  our  own  hands. 

(20)  Therefore,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him;  if  he 
thirst,  give  him  drink,  &.c.  That  is,  instead  of  avenging  our- 
selves by  returning  evil  for  evil,  we  must  return  good  for  evil. 
The  expressions  feed  him  and  give  him  drink  are  obviously 
not  to  be  confined  to  their  literal  meaning,  nor  even  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  common  offices  of  humanity;  they  are  figurative 
expressions  for  all  the  duties  of  benevolence.  It  is  not  enough, 
therefore,  that  we  preserve  an  enemy  from  perishing;  we  must 
treat  him  with  all  affection  and  kindness. 

For  in  so  doi7ig  thou  shall  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his 
head.  This  whole  verse  is  taken  from  Prov.  25:  21,  22,  "  If 
thine  enemy  be  hungry  give  him  bread  to  eat;  and  if  he  be 
thirsty  give  him  water  to  drink:  For  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of 
fire  upon  his  head,  and  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee."  The  com- 
mon and  natural  meaning  of  the  expression  to  heap  coals  of 
fire  upon  any  one,  is  to  inflict  the  greatest  pain  upon  him,  to 


ROMANS  12:  9—21.  515 

punish  him  most  severely;  sec  Ps.  140:  10,  "  Let  burning  coals 
fall  upon  them;"  Ps.  11:  6,  "Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain 
coals  (D'n?  for  a'?n?),  fn-e  and  brimstone,  and  an  horrible  tem- 
pest;" Ez.  10:  2.  4  Esdr.  16:  52,  "  J.ct  not  the  wicked  deny 
that  he  has  sinned,  for  coals  of  fire  shall  burn  upon  the  head  of 
him  who  denies  that  he  has  sinned  against  the  Lord  God." 
The  most  probable  explanation  of  this  figurative  expression  is, 
that  the  allusion  is  to  the  lightning  or  fire  from  heaven,  which 
is  the  symbol  of  the  divine  vengeance.  To  rain  fire  upon  any 
one,  is  to  visit  him  with  the  severest  and  surest  destruction. 
This  explanation  is  much  more  natural  than  to  suppose  the  allu- 
sion is  to  the  practice  of  throwing  fire-brands  upon  the  heads 
of  the  besiegers  of  a  city,  or  to  the  fusing  of  metals. 

There  are  three  leading  interpretations  of  this  interesting 
clause.  The  first,  which  is  perhaps  the  oldest,  and  very  gene- 
rally received,  is,  that  Paul  means  to  say  that  our  enemies  will 
be  much  more  severely  punished  if  we  leave  them  in  the  hands 
of  God,  than  if  we  undertake  to  avenge  ourselves.  '  Treat  your 
enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing  you  secure  his  being  punished  by 
God  in  the  severest  manner.'  The  revolting  character  of  this 
interpretation,  which  every  one  must  feel,  is  mitigated  by  the  re- 
mark that '  the  enemy  is  not  to  be  thus  treated  from  any  wish  or 
intention  of  drawing  down  the  divine  wrath  upon  him;  it  is 
only  meant  that  such  will  be  the  consequence.'  But  this  remark 
does  not  meet  the  difficulty.  This  clause  is  so  connected  with 
the  preceding,  that  it  must  be  understood  as  assigning  the  mo- 
tive or  reason  for  the  discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined;  'Treat 
thine  enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing,  &c.'  The  second  inter- 
pretation is,  that  by  heaping  coals  of  fire  on  his  head,  is  meant 
you  will  cause  him  pain,  i.  e.  the  pain  of  remorse  and  shame. 
So  Tholuck  and  many  other  commentators.  The  third,  which 
seems  much  the  most  simple  and  natural,  is,  '  for  in  so  doing  you 
will  take  the  most  effectual  method  of  subduing  him.'  To  heap 
coals  of  fire  on  any  one  is  a  punishment  which  no  one  can  bear, 
he  must  yield  to  it.  Kindness  is  no  less  effectual;  the  most 
malignant  enemy  cannot  always  withstand  it.  The  true  and 
Christian  method,  therefore,  to  subdue  an  enemy  is  to  "  over- 
come evil  with  good."  This  interpretation,  which  suits  so 
well  the  whole  context,  seems  to  be  rendered  necessary  by  the 
following  verse,  which  is  a  repetition  of  the  previous  injunc- 


516  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 

tions  in  plainer  and  more  general  terms.*  The  sentiment 
which  the  verse  thus  explained  expresses,  is  also  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

(21)  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good. 
It  is  only  by  disconnecting  this  verse  from  the  preceding,  and 
considering  it  as  nearly  independent  of  it,  that  any  plausibility 
can  be  given  to  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above  of  v. 
20.  That  it  is  not  thus  independent  of  it  almost  every  reader 
must  feel.  'We  are  not  to  conquer  evil  by  evil,  but  to  treat  our 
enemies  with  kindness.  Thus  we  shall  most  effectually  subdue 
them.  Do  not  therefore  allow  yourself  to  be  overcome  of 
evil  (i.  e.  to  be  provoked  to  the  indulgence  of  a  spirit  of  retalia- 
tion), but  overcome  evil  with  good,  subdue  your  enemies  by 
kindness,  not  by  injuries.'! 

Doctrines 

1.  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law;  it  leads  to  the  avoiding 
of  every  thing  injurious  to  our  neighbour,  and  to  sedulous  atten- 
tion to  every  thing  adapted  to  promote  his  welfare,  v.  9. 

2.  The  relation  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each  other  is 
that  of  members  of  the  same  family.  As,  however,  it  is  not  a 
relation  constituted  by  birth,  nor  secured  by  the  adoption  of 
a  name,  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  existence  but  that  which  con- 

*  Vincere  dulce  et  praeclarum  est.  Optimam  autem  vincendi  rationem  sapi- 
entissime  docet  Salomo  (Prov.  25:  21)  jubens  nos  esurientibus  inimicis  cibum, 
sitientibus  potura  praebere :  quia  beneficiis  eos  devincicntcs  fortius  superabimus, 
quam  qui  hostem  a  vallo  et  moenibus  flammis  superjcctis  aicent  et  repellunt. — De 
Brais. 

Among  the  numerous  striking  classical  illustrations  of  the  sentiment  of  this 
verse  quoted  by  W£tstki:v,  are  the  following.  Jnstinm,  XI.  12,  8,  Tunc  Darius 
SB  ratus  vere  victum,  cum  post  praelia  etiam  beneficiis  ah  hoste  superaretur.  Cae- 
sar ap.  Cic.  ad  Atticum,  IX.  8,  Haec  nova  sit  ratio  vincendi,  ut  misericordia  nos 
muniamus,  id  (juemadmodum  fieri  possit,  nonnulla  mi  in  mentem  veniunt,  et  multa 
reperiri  possunt.  Se?ieca  de  Beneficiis,  VII.  31,  Vincit  males  pertinax  bonitas, 
nee  quisquam  tam  duri  infcstique  adversus  diligenda  animi  est,  ut  etiam  vi  victus 
bonos  non  amct.  32,  Ingratus  est — huic  ipsi  beneficium  dabo  iterum,  et  tanquam 
bonus  agricola  cura  cultuquo  sterilitatcm  soli  vincani.  De  Ira,  II.  32,  Non  enim  ut 
in  beneficiis  honestum  est  merita  meritis  repcnsaie,  ita  injurias  injuriis ;  illic  vinci 
turpe  est,  hie  vincere. 

■j-  Hie  nobis  omnino  certamen  est  cum  perversitate ;  nam  earn  si  retaliare  cona- 
mur,  confitemur  nos  ab  ea  victos :  contra  si  bonum  pro  malo  reddimus,  eo  facto 
prodimus  invictam  animi  constantiam.  Et  sane  hoc  est  pulcherrimum  victoriae 
genus,  &c. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  12:  9—21.  517 

sists  in  the  exercise  of  that '  l)rotherly  affection'  (that  spiritual 
(TTop/-;))  which  brethren  in  Christ  feel  for  each  other,  v.  10. 

3.  Religion  is  the  soul  of  morality,  without  which  it  is  hut 
a  lovely  corpse.  Our  moral  duties  we  must  perform  as  "  ser- 
ving the  Lord."  The  religious  affections  and  emotions  do  not 
supersede  those  of  a  simply  benevolent  or  social  character,  but 
mingle  with  them,  and  elevate  all  social  and  relative  duties  into 
acts  of  religion  and  genuine  morality,  v.  11. 

4.  The  source  of  our  life  is  in  God;  without  intercourse  with 
him  therefore  we  cannot  derive  those  supplies  of  grace  which 
are  requisite  to  preserve  the  spirit  of  piety  in  our  hearts,  and  to 
send  a  vital  influence  through  the  various  duties  and  avocations  of 
life.  Hence  the  absolute  necessity  of  being  "  instant  in  prayer," 
V.  12. 

5.  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  men  that  dwell  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth.  There  is  in  this  fact  of  a  common  origin  and 
the  possession  of  a  common  nature  a  sufficient  ground  for  the 
inculcation  of  an  universal  sympathy  with  all  our  fellow  men. 
As  he  is  no  true  Christian  who  is  destitute  of  a  genuine  sympathy 
for  his  fellow  Christians,  so  he  is  very  far  from  being  a  man  such 
as  God  approves,  who  docs  not  "  rejoice  with  them  that  do  re- 
joice, and  weep  with  them  that  weep,"  v.  15. 

6.  A  wrong  estimate  of  ourselves  is  a  fruitful  source  of  evil. 
Viewed  in  relation  to  God,  and  in  our  own  absolute  insignifi- 
cance, we  have  little  reason  to  be  wise  or  important  in  our  own 
conceits.  A  proper  self-knowledge  will  preserve  us  from 
pride,  ambition,  and  contempt  of  others,  v.  16. 

7.  Abstaining  from  evil  is  but  one  half  of  duty.  It  is  not 
enough  to  avoid  imprecating  evil  upon  our  enemies;  we  must 
sincerely  desire  and  pray  for  their  welfare.  Nor  is  it  sufficient 
not  to  recompense  evil  for  evil,  we  must  return  good  for  evil, 
vs.  17—21. 

8.  The  prerogatives  of  judgment  and  vengeance  belong  to 
God,  we  have  no  right  therefore  to  arrogate  them  to  ourselves, 
except  in  those  cases  in  which,  for  his  glory  and  the  good  of  socie- 
ty, he  has  given  us  authority.  All  condemnation  of  others  for 
self-gratification,  and  all  private  revenge  is  inconsistent  with  the 
gospel,  vs.  11 — 21. 


518  ROMANS  12:  9—21. 


Remarks. 

1.  Christians  should  never  forget  that  faith  without  works  is 
dead.  It  is  not  more  important  to  believe  what  God  has  re- 
vealed, than  to  do  what  he  has  commanded.  A  faith  therefore 
which  does  not  produce  love,  kindness,  sympathy,  humility, 
the  forgiveness  of  injuries,  &c.  can  do  us  little  good,  vs.  9 — 21. 

2.  It  is  peculiarly  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
that  it  turns  the  heart  towards  others,  and  away  from  our  own 
interests.  Self  is  not  the  Christian's  centre;  men  are  loved 
because  they  are  men,  Christians  because  they  are  Christians; 
the  former  with  sincere  sympathy  and  benevolence,  the  latter 
with  brotherly  affection.  The  happiness  and  feelings  of  others, 
the  gospel  teaches  us  to  consult  in  small,  as  well  as  in  great 
matters,  anticipating  each  other  in  all  acts  of  kindness  and 
attention,  vs.  9 — 13. 

3.  The  benevolence  of  the  gospel  is  active  and  religious;  it 
leads  to  constant  efforts,  and  is  imbued  with  a  spirit  of  piety, 
V.  11. 

4.  We  must  remember  that  without  Christ  we  can  do 
nothing;  that  it  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us. 
If,  therefore,  we  attempt  to  discharge  the  duties  here  enjoined 
apart  from  him,  we  shall  be  as  a  branch  severed  from  the  vine; 
and  unless  we  are  "  instant  in  prayer,"  this  union  with  Christ 
cannot  be  kept  up,  v.  12. 

5.  Alms-giving  and  hospitality,  in  various  ages  of  the  church, 
have  been  unduly  exalted,  as  though  they  were  the  whole  of 
benevolence,  and  the  greater  part  of  piety.  While  we  should 
avoid  this  extreme,  we  should  remember  that  we  are  stewards 
of  God,  and  that '  Whoso  hath  this  world's  good,  and  seeth  his 
brother  have  need,  and  shutteth  up  his  bowels  of  compassion 
from  him,  hath  not  the  love  of  God  dwelling  in  him,'  v.  13. 
1  John  3:  17. 

6.  One  of  the  most  beautiful  exhibitions  of  the  character  of 
our  Saviour  was  afforded  by  his  conduct  under  persecution. 
"He  was  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter;"  "when  he  was  re- 
viled, he  reviled  not  again;  when  he  suffered  he  threatened 
not."  Even  martyrs  dying  for  the  truth  have  not  always  been 
able  to  avoid  the  prediction  of  evil  to  their  jiersccutors;  so 
much  easier  is  it  to  abstain  from  recompensing  evil  for  evil;  than 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  519 

really  to  love  and  pray  for  the  good  of  our  enemies.  This, 
however,  is  Christian  duty,  such  is  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 
Just  so  far,  therefore,  as  we  find  our  hearts  indisposed  to  bless 
those  who  curse  us,  or  inclined  to  indulge  even  a  secret  satis- 
faction when  evil  comes  upon  them,  are  we  unchristian  in  our 
temper,  vs.  19 — 21. 

7.  Nothing  is  so  powerful  as  goodness;  it  is  the  most  eflica- 
cious  means  to  subdue  enemies  and  put  down  opposition.  Men, 
whose  minds  can  withstand  argument,  and  whose  hearts  rebel 
against  threats,  are  not  proof  against  the  persuasive  influence  of 
unfeigned  love;  there  is,  therefore,  no  more  important  collateral 
reason  for  being  good,  than  that  it  increases  our  power  to  do 
good,  vs.  20 — 21. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

Contents. 

The  chapter  treats  mainly  of  our  political  duties.  From  v. 
1  to  V.  7  inclusive,  the  apostle  enforces  the  duties  which  we 
owe  to  civil  magistrates.  From  v.  8  to  v.  13,  he  refers  to  the 
more  general  obligations  under  which  Christians  arc  placed, 
but  still  with  special  reference  to  their  civil  and  social  relations, 
From  V.  1 1  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  he  enjoins  an  exemplary 
and  holy  deportment. 


CHAP.  13:  1—14. 

Analysis. 
The  duty  of  obedience  to  those  in  authority  is  enforced,  1.  By 
the  consideration  that  civil  government  is  a  divine  institution, 
and,  therefore,  resistance  to  magistrates  in  the  exercise  of  their 
lawful  authority  is  disobedience  to  God,  vs.  1,  2.  2.  From  the 
end  or  design  of  their  appointment,  which  is  to  promote  the 
good  of  society,  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a  praise  to 
them  that  do  well,  vs.  3,  4.  3.  Because  such  subjection  is  a 
moral,  as  well  as  civil  duty,  v.  5.     On  these  grounds  the  pay- 


520  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

ment  of  tribute  or  taxes,  and  general  deference,  are  to  be  cheer- 
fully rendered,  vs.  6,  7. 

Christians  are  bound  not  only  to  be  obedient  to  those  in 
authority,  but  also  to  perform  all  social  and  relative  duties, 
especially  that  of  love,  which  includes  and  secures  the  obser- 
vance of  all  others,  vs.  8 — 10.  A  pure  and  exemplary  life  as 
members  of  society  is  enforced  by  the  consideration  that  the 
night  is  far  spent  and  that  the  day  is  at  hand,  that  the  time  of 
sufiTering  and  trial  is  nearly  over,  and  that  of  deliverance  ap- 
proaching, vs.  11 — 14. 

Commentary. 

(1)  Let  every  soul  he  subject  to  the  higher  poivers.  The 
expression  every  soul  is  often  used  as  equivalent  to  every  one; 
it  is  at  times,  however,  emphatic,  and  such  is  probably  the  case 
in  this  passage.  By  higher  powers  is  most  commonly  and 
naturally  understood  those  in  authority,  without  reference  to 
their  grade  of  office,  or  their  character.  We  are  to  be  subject 
not  only  to  the  supreme  magistrates,  but  to  all  who  have 
authority  over  us.  The  abstract  word  poivers  or  authorities 
(J^ouffiai)  is  used,  as  the  corresponding  terms  in  most  languages, 
for  those  who  are  invested  with  power,  Luke  12:  11.  Eph.  1: 
21.  3:  10,  &c.  &c.  The  word  (uirs^j'xwv)  rendered  higher  is 
applied  to  any  one  who,  in  dignity  and  authority,  excels  others. 
In  1  Peter  2:  13,  it  is  applied  to  the  king  as  supreme,  i.  e. 
superior  to  all  other  magistrates.  But  here  one  class  of  magis- 
trates is  not  brought  into  comparison  with  another,  but  they 
are  spoken  of  as  being  over  other  men  who  are  not  in  office. 
It  is  a  very  unnatural  interpretation  which  makes  this  word 
refer  to  the  character  of  the  magistrates,  as  though  the  sense 
were,  '  Be  subject  to  good  magistrates.'  This  is  contrary  to 
the  usage  of  the  term  and  inconsistent  with  the  context.  Obe- 
dience is  not  enjoined  on  the  ground  of  the  personal  merit  of 
those  in  authority,  but  on  the  ground  of  their  official  station. 

There  was  peculiar  necessity,  during  the  apostolic  age,  for 
inculcating  the  duty  of  obedience  to  civil  magistrates.  This 
necessity  arose  in  part  from  the  fact  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
converts  to  Christianity  had  been  Jews,  and  were  peculiarly 
indisposed  to  submit  to  the  heathen  autlioritics.     This  indispo- 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  521 

sition  (as  far  as  it  was  peculiar)  arose  from  tlie  prevailing  im- 
pression among  them  that  this  subjection  was  unlawful,  or  at 
least  highly  derogatory  to  their  character  as  the  people  of  God, 
who  had  so  long  lived  under  a  theocracy.  In  Deut.  17:  15,  it  is 
said,  "Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over  thee,  wliom 
the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose;  one  from  among  thy  brethren 
shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee;  thou  shalt  not  set  a  stranger 
over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother."  It  was  a  question, 
therefore,  constantly  agitated  among  them,  "  Is  it  lawful  to  pay 
tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not  ?"  A  question  wliich  the  great 
majority  were  at  least  secretly  inclined  to  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive. Another  source  of  the  restlessness  of  the  Jews  under  a 
foreign  yoke,  was  the  idea  which  they  entertained  of  the  nature 
of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  As  they  expected  a  temporal  Prince, 
whose  kingdom  should  be  of  this  world,  they  were  ready  to 
rise  in  rebellion  at  the  call  of  every  one  who  cried,  "  I  am 
Christ."  The  history  of  the  Jews  at  this  period  shows  how 
great  was  the  effect  produced  by  these  and  similar  causes  on 
their  feelings  towards  the  Roman  government.  They  were 
continually  breaking  out  into  tumults,  which  led  to  their  ex- 
pulsion from  Rome,*  and,  finally,  to  the  utter  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  It  is,  therefore,  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  con- 
verts from  among  such  a  people  should  need  the  injunction, 
"  Be  subject  to  the  higher  powers."  Besides  the  effect  of  their 
previous  opinions  and  feelings,  there  is  something  in  the  cha- 
racter of  Christianity  itself,  and  in  the  incidental  results  of  the 
excitement  which  it  occasions,  to  account  for  the  repugnance  of 
many  of  the  early  Christians  to  submit  to  their  civil  rulers. 
They  wrested  no  doubt  the  doctrine  of  Christian  liberty,  as 
they  did  other  doctrines,  to  suit  their  own  inclinations.  This 
result,  however,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  religion,  but  to  the 
improper  feelings  of  those  into  whose  minds  the  form  of  truth 
without  its  full  power  had  been  received. 

Fo7'  there  is  no  power  but  of  God;  and  the  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God.  This  is  the  ground  of  the  command 
in  the  first  clause.  We  must  obey  our  rulers,  because  govern- 
ment is  of  divine  appoint ment.     It  is  not  a  matter  which  men 

*  Suetonius,  Claud.  25,  says,  Judacos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumuUuantes 
(Claudius)  Roma  expulit;  see  Acts  18:  2. 

66 


522  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

may  or  may  not  have  at  pleasure;  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  it 
should  exist,  and  that  those  who  exercise  it  should  be  obeyed 
within  the  sphere  of  their  legitimate  authority.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  word  power,  in  the  first  clause  of  this  sentence,  is 
to  be  taken  as  abstract  or  concrete,  i.  e.  whether  the  meaning  is, 
'  There  is  no  government  or  authority  but  of  God,'  or  '  There  is 
no  magistrate  who  is  not  of  God;'  every  civil  magistrate  is  to 
be  considered  as  clothed  with  divine  authority.  There  seems 
to  be  little  difference,  as  to  the  real  sense  of  the  passage,  be- 
tween these  two  modes  of  interpretation.  The  main  idea 
obviously  is,  that  government  is  of  divine  appointment,  and 
consequently  those  who  resist  it  disobey  God.  In  the  second 
clause,  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,  the  sense  may 
be  either,  all  governments  are  ordained  of  God, or,  all  magistrates 
are  thus  ordained.  Some  commentators  insist  strenuously  on  the 
one  mode,  and  some  on  the  other.  But  as  just  remarked,  the 
sentiment  is  in  either  case  the  same.  As  the  expression  higher 
powers,  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  is  almost  universally  un- 
derstood of  the  persons  who  exercise  authority,  it  would  seem 
most  natural  to  undei-stand  the  same  word  in  the  same  manner 
through  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  All  magistrates  of  what- 
ever grade  are  to  be  regarded  as  acting  by  divine  appointment; 
not  that  God  designates  the  individuals,  but  that  it  being  his 
will  that  there  should  be  magistrates,  every  person,  who  is  in 
point  of  fact  clothed  with  authority,  is  to  be  regarded  as  having 
a  claim  to  obedience,  founded  on  the  will  of  God.  In  like 
manner  the  authority  of  parents  over  their  children,  of  hus- 
bands over  their  wives,  of  masters  over  their  servants,  is  of 
God's  ordination. 

(2)  Whoso,  therefore,  resisteth  the  power  resist eih  the 
ordinance  of  God.  This  is  an  obvious  inference  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse.  If  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
there  should  be  civil  government,  and  persons  appointed  to 
exercise  authority  over  others,  it  is  plain  that  to  resist  such 
persons  in  the  exercise  of  their  lawful  autliority  is  an  act  of 
disobedience  to  God. 

^find  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damna- 
tion. This  also  is  an  obvious  conclusion  from  the  preceding. 
If  disobedience  is  a  sin,  it  will  be  punished.  The  word  (x^iV") 
rendered  damnation,  means  here  simply  punishment,  which  is 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  523 

also  the  old  meaning  of  the  word  damnation.  As  this  word, 
however,  has  become  restricted  to  the  final  and  eternal  con- 
demnation of  the  wicked,  it  is  now  unsuited  to  this  passage  and 
some  others  in  which  it  occurs  in  our  version:  sec  1  Cor.  11: 
29.  Paul  does  not  refer  to  the  punishment  wliich  the  civil 
magistrate  may  inflict;  for  he  is  speaking  of  disoljcdicnce  to 
those  in  authority  as  a  sin  against  God,  which  he  will  punish. 

It  is  clear  that  this  passage  (vs.  1,  2)  is  applicable  to  men 
living  under  every  form  of  government,  monarchial,  aristo- 
cratical,  or  democratical,  in  all  their  various  modifications. 
Those  who  are  in  authority  are  to  be  obeyed  within  their 
sphere,  no  matter  how  or  by  whom  appointed.  It  was  to  Paul 
a  matter  of  little  importance  whether  the  Roman  emperor  was 
appointed  by  the  senate,  the  army,  or  the  people;  whether  the 
assumption  of  the  imperial  authority  by  Caesar  was  just  or  un- 
just, or  whether  his  successors  had  a  legitimate  claim  to  the 
throne  or  not.  It  was  his  object  to  lay  down  the  simple  prin- 
ciple, that  magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed.  The  extent  of  this 
obedience  is  to  be  determined  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
They  are  to  be  obeyed  as  magistrates,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
lawful  authority.  When  Paul  commands  wives  to  obey  their 
husbands,  they  are  required  to  obey  them  as  husbands,  not  as 
masters  nor  as  kings;  children  are  to  obey  their  parents  as 
parents,  not  as  sovereigns;  and  so  in  every  other  case.  This 
passage,  therefore,  affords  a  very  slight  foundation  for  the  doc- 
trine of  passive  obedience. 

(3)  For  rulers  arc  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  evil. 
This  verse  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  second,  but  with  the 
first,  as  it  assigns  an  additional  reason  for  the  duty  there  en- 
joined. Magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed,  for  such  is  the  will  of 
God,  and  because  they  are  appointed  to  repress  evil  and  to  pro- 
mote good.  There  is  a  ground,  therefore,  in  the  very  nature  of 
their  ofllice,  why  they  should  not  be  resisted. 

IVilt  thou  then  not  be  af mid  of  the  power?  do  that  ichich 
is  good,  and  thou  shall  have  praise  of  the  same.  That  is, 
government  is  not  an  evil  to  be  feared,  except  by  evil  doers. 
As  the  magistrates  are  appointed  for  the  punishment  of  evil, 
the  way  to  avoid  their  authority  is  not  to  resist  it,  but  to  do 
that  which  is  good.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  legitimate  design 
of  government,  not  of  the  abuse  of  power  by  wicked  men. 


524  ROMANS  13:  1—14, 

(4)  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  for  thee  for  good,  &.e. 
This  whole  verse  is  but  an  amplification  of  the  preceding, 
'  Government  is  a  benevolent  institution  of  God,  designed  for 
the  benefit  of  men;  and,  therefore,  should  be  respected  and 
obeyed.  As  it  has,  however,  the  rightful  authority  to  punish, 
it  is  to  be  feared  by  those  that  do  evil.'  For  good,  i.  e.  to 
secure  or  promote  your  welfare.  Magistrates  or  rulers  are  not 
appointed  for  their  own  honour  or  advantage,  but  for  the  bene- 
fit of  society,  and,  therefore,  while  those  in  subjection  are  on 
this  account  to  obey  them,  they  themselves  are  taught,  what 
those  in  power  are  so  apt  to  forget,  that  they  are  the  servants 
of  the  people  as  well  as  the  servants  of  God,  and  that  the  wel- 
fare of  society  is  the  only  legitimate  object  which  they  as 
rulers  are  at  liberty  to  pursue. 

But  if  thou  do  that  ivhich  is  evil,  be  afraid:  for  he  hear- 
eth  not  the  sword  in  vaiii;  a  revenger  to  execute  ivrath  (sig 
l^yrtv^  i.  e.  for  the  purpose  of  punishment)  vpo7i  him  that  doeth 
evil.  As  one  part  of  the  design  of  government  is  to  protect 
the  good,  so  the  other  is  to  punish  the  wicked.  The  existence 
of  this  delegated  authority  is,  therefore,  a  reason  why  men 
should  abstain  from  the  commission  of  evil.  He  heareth  not 
the  sword  in  vain,  i.  e.  it  is  not  in  vain  that  he  is  invested 
with  authority  to  punish.  As  the  common  method  of  inflict- 
ing capital  punishment  was  by  decapitation  with  a  sword,  that 
instrument  is  mentioned  as  the  symbol  of  the  right  of  punish- 
ment, and,  as  many  infer  from  this  passage,  of  tlie  right  of 
capital  punishment.* 

(5)  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  he  subject,  not  only  for 
wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake.  That  is,  subjection  to 
magistrates  is  not  only  a  civil  duty  enforced  by  penal  statutes, 
but  also  a  religious  duty  and  part  of  our  obedience  to  God. 
For  wrath,  i.  e.  from  fear  of  punishment.  For  conscience 
sake,  i.  c.  out  of  regard  to  God,  from  conscientious  motives. 
In  like  manner  Paul  enforces  all  relative  and  social  duties  on 
religious  grounds.  Children  are  to  obey  their  parent,  because 
it  is  right  in  the  sight  of  God;  and  servants  are  to  be  obedient 

•  Insignia  locus  ad  jus  gladii  comprobandum;  nam  si  Dominus  magistratum  ar- 
mando  gladii  quoque  usum  illi  mandavit,  quotics  sontcs  capitali  poena  vindicat, 
exerccndo  Dei  ultionem,  ejus  nianditis  obsequitur.  Contendunt  igitur  cum  Deo 
qui  sanguincm  nocentium  homiuum  efl'undi  nefus  esse  p>itant. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  525 

to  tlieir  master,  as  unto  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the 
heart,  Eph.  6:  1,  5,  6. 

(6)  For,  for  this  cmise.  pay  ye  tribute  also.  This  verse 
may  be  connected  by  the  words  (<5ia  touto)  rendered  for  to  the 
preceding,  thus,  'Wherefore  (i.  e.  for  conscience  sake),  ye 
should  pay  tribute  also.'  But  it  is  better  to  consider  this  clause 
as  containing  an  inference  from  the  foregoing  exhibition  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  civil  government.  'Since  government  is 
constituted  for  the  benefit  of  society,  for  the  punishment  of  evil 
doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  those  that  do  well,  ye  should  cheer- 
fully pay  the  contributions  requisite  for  its  support' 

For  they  are  the  ministers  of  God,  attending;  coyitimuiUy 
on  this  very  thing.  This  clause  introduces  another  reason  for 
payment  of  tribute.  Magistrates  are  not  only  appointed  for 
the  public  good,  but  they  are  the  ministers  of  God,  and  conse- 
quently it  is  his  will  that  we  should  contribute  whatever  is 
necessary  to  enable  them  to  discharge  their  duty.  The  word 
(XeiTou^yoi)  rendered  ministers  means  public  servants,  men  ap- 
pointed for  any  public  work,  ciA'il  or  religious.  Among  the 
Greek  democratical  states,  especially  at  Athens,  those  persons 
were  particularly  so  called  who  were  required  to  perform  some 
public  service  at  their  own  expense.  It  is  used  in  scripture  in 
a  general  sense  for  servants  or  ministers,  Rom.  15: 1(5.  Heb.  1 :  7. 
8:  2.  The  words  to  this  very  thing  are  by  many  considered 
as  referring  to  the  collection  of  tribute,  as  though  the  meaning 
Avere,  '  They  are  servants  appointed  by  God,  to  attend  to  this 
very  business  of  tax  gathering.'  But  it  is  much  more  common 
and  natural  to  understand  these  w^ords  as  referring  to  the  ser- 
vice which,  as  the  ministers  of  God,  magistrates  are  called  upon 
to  perform.  '  They  are  the  servants  of  God,  attending  con- 
tinually to  this  ministry.'  The  same  idea  would  be  expressed 
by  saying,  'They  are  appointed  b}^  God  for  the  public  service:' 
and  this  is  the  reason  why  the  necessary  contributions  should 
be  faithfully  and  cheerfully  made.  Taxes  then  are  to  be  paid 
for  the  public  service,  and  for  the  public  service  thoy  are  to  be 
employed. 

(7)  Render,  therefore,  to  all  their  dues:  trihiilr  to  irhom 
tribute;  custom  to  ivhoni  custom:  fear  to  u-ho/n  fear: 
honour  to  ivhom  honour.     '  Such  being  the  will  of  (iod,  and 


526  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

such  the  l)enevolent  design  of  civil  government,  render  to  magis- 
trates (and  to  all  others)  what  properly  belongs  to  them,  whether 
pecuniary  contribution,  reverence  or  honour.'  The  word  all 
seems,  from  the  context,  to  have  special  reference  to  all  in  au- 
thority, though  it  is  not  necessary  to  confine  it  to  such  persons 
exclusively.  The  word  ((po^og)  tribute  is  applied  properly  to 
land  and  capitation  tax;  and  (ts'Xos)  to  the  customs  levied  on 
merchandise.  The  words  {(po(3og  and  Tifji,^)  fear  and  honour 
are  generally  considered  in  this  connexion  as  differing  only  in 
degree,  the  former  expressing  the  reverence  to  superiors,  the 
latter  the  respect  to  equals. 

(8)  Owe  no  man  any  tiling,  but  to  love  one  another,  &c. 
That  is,  acquit  yourselves  of  all  obligations,  except  love,  which 
is  a  debt  which  must  remain  ever  due.  This  is  the  common, 
and,  considering  the  context  which  abounds  with  commands, 
the  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Others,  how- 
ever, take  the  verb  (o'lps/XsTa)  as  in  the  indicative,  instead  of  the 
imperative  mood,  and  understand  the  passage  thus,  '  Ye  owe  no 
man  any  thing  but  love  (wliich  includes  all  other  duties),  for  he 
that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'  This  gives  a  good  sense 
when  this  verse  is  taken  by  itself,  but  viewed  in  connexion 
with  those  wlaich  precede  and  follow,  the  common  interpretation 
is  much  more  natural.  The  idea  which  a  cursory  reader 
might  be  disposed  to  attach  to  these  words,  in  considering  them 
as  a  direction  not  to  contract  pecuniary  debts,  is  not  properly  ex- 
pressed by  them;  although  the  prohibition,  in  its  spirit,  includes 
the  incurring  of  such  obligations  when  we  have  not  the  certain 
prospect  of  discharging  them.  The  command,  however,  is,  'Ac- 
quit yourselves  of  all  obligations,  tribute,  custom,  fear,  honour, 
or  whatever  else  you  may  owe,  but  remember  that  the  debt  of 
love  is  still  unpaid  and  always  must  remain  so,  for  love  includes 
all  duty,  since  he  that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'* 

(9)  For  this,  Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery.  Thou  shall 

*  Amare ;  debitum  immortale.  Si  amabitis,  nil  debitis  nam  amor  implet  legem. 
Amare,  libcrtas  est. — Bkngel.  Argute  et  elegantcr  dictum :  dilectionis  debitum 
et  semper  solvitur  ct  semper  manet. — Wktstkin. 

A  grateful  miiul, 
By  owing  owes  not,  and  still  pays,  at  once 
Indebted  and  discharged. — Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  IV.  R5. 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  527 

not  kill,  Thou  shall  not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
ivitness^-*  Thou  shall  not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other 
commandment  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying, 
namely.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neis;hbour  as  thyself.  This 
verse  is  evidently  a  confirmation  of  the  declaration  at  the  close 
of  the  preceding  one,  that  love  includes  all  our  social  duties. 
This  is  further  confirmed  in  the  following  verse.  . 

(10)  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbour,  therefore  love 
is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  That  is,  as  love  delights  in  the 
happiness  of  its  object,  it  effectually  prevents  us  from  injuring 
those  we  love,  and,  consequently,  leads  us  to  fulfd  all  the  law 
requires,  because  the  law  requires  nothing  which  is  not  condu- 
cive to  the  best  interests  of  our  fellow  men.  He,  therefore, 
who  loves  his  neighbour  with  the  same  sincerity  tliat  he  loves 
himself,  and  consequently  treats  him  as  he  would  wish,  under 
similar  circumstances,  to  be  treated  by  him,  will  fulfil  all  that 
the  law  enjoins;  hence  the  whole  law  is  comprehended  in  this 
one  command,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself. 

(11)  And  that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  it  is  high 
time  to  awake  out  of  sleep;  for  noiv  is  our  salvation  nearer 
than  when  we  believed.  From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter,  Paul  exhorts  his  readers  to  discharge  the  duties  already 
enjoined,  and  urges  on  them  to  live  a  holy  and  exemplar)'  life. 
The  consideration  by  which  this  exhortation  is  enforced,  is,  that 
the  night  is  far  spent  and  that  the  da}'  is  at  hand,  the  time  of 
deliverance  is  fast  approaching.  The  words  (xa/  toCto)  rendered 
and  that  are  by  many  considered  as  elliptical,  and  the  word  (■roi- 
SH-s)  do  is  supplied;  '  And  this  do.^  The  demonstrative  pronoun, 
however,  is  frequently  used  to  mark  the  importance  of  the  con- 
nexion between  two  circumstances  for  the  case  in  hand  (Passow, 
Vol.  2,  p.  319),  and  is,  therefore,  often  equivalent  to  the  phrases 
and  indeed,  the  more,  &c.  So  in  this  case,  '  We  must  dis- 
charge our  various  duties,  and  that  knowing,  &c.,  i.  e.  the 
rather,  because  we  know,  &:c.;'  compare  Ileb.  11:  12.  1  Cor. 
6:  6.  Eph.  2:  8.  Knowing  the  time,  i.  e.  considcriug  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  period  in  which  we  now  live.    The 

*  The  words  oj  4'Su5ojxafTUf/;tf£ig  ai'e  oiniUcd  in  the  MSS.  A.  U.  E.  F.  G.  1,  'i, 
29,  34,  36,  38,  39,  41,  43,  46,  47,  52,  and  in  the  Syriac  version.  They  are  re- 
jected in  the  Complutcnsian  edition,  and  in  thobc  of  Mill,  Bcngcl,  Gricsbach, 
Knapp  and  Lachmann. 


528  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

original  word  (xai^og)  does  not  mean  time  iii  the  general,  but  a 
portion  of  time  considered  as  appropriate,  as  fixed,  as  short, 
&c,  &c.     Paul  immediately  explains  himself  by  adding,  that 
now  it  is  high  time  to  awake  out  of  sleep;  it  was  the  proper 
time  to  arouse  themselves  from  their  slumbers,  and,  shaking  off 
all  slothfulness,  to  address  themselves  earnestly  to  work.     For 
now  L%  our  salvation  nearer  than  ivhen  we  believed.     This 
is  the  reason  why  it  is  time  to  be  up  and  active,  salvation  is  at 
hand.     There  are  three  leading  interpretations  of  this  clause. 
The  first  is,  that  it  means  that  the  time  of  salvation  or  special 
favour  to  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the  destruction  of  the  Jews,  was 
fast  approaching.      So  Hammond,  Whitby  and  many  others. 
But  for  this  there  is  no  foundation  in   the  simple  meaning  of 
the  words,  nor  in  the  context.     Paul  evidently  refers  to  some- 
thing of  more  general  and  permanent  interest  than  the  over- 
throw of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  consequent  freedom  of  the 
Gentile  converts  from  their  persecutions.     The  night  that  was 
far  spent,  was  not  the  night  of  sorrow  arising  from   Jewish 
bigotry;  and  the  day  that  was  at  hand  was  something  brighter 
and  better  than  deliverance  from  its  power.     A  second  inter- 
pretation very  generally  received  of  late  is,  that  the  reference 
is  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ.     It  is  assumed  that  the  early 
Christians,  and  even  the  inspired  apostles,  were  under  the  con- 
stant impression   that  Christ  w^as  to  appear  in  person  for  the 
establishment  of  his   kingdom   before  that  generation  passed 
away.     This  assumption  is  founded   on  such  passages  as  the 
following,  Phil.  4:  5,  "The  Lord  is  at  hand;"   1  Thess.  4:  17, 
"  We  that  are  alive   and   remain  shall  be  caught  up  together 
with  them  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air;"   1  Cor.  15:  51,  "We 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,"  &c.  &c.    With 
regard  to  this  point,  we  may  remark,  1.  That  neither  the  early 
Christians  nor  the  apostles  knew  wlien  the  second  advent  of 
Christ  was  to  take  place.     "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth 
no  man,   no,   nor  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only. 
But  as  the  days  of  Noc  ivcre,  so  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  be,"  Matt.  24:  36,  37.     "They   (the  apostles)  asked 
of  him,  saying.  Lord  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom 
to  Israel  ?    And  he  said  unto  them,  It  is  not  for  you  to  know 
the  times  or  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own 
power,"  Acts  1 :  6,  7.    "  But  of  the  times  and  seasons,  brethren, 


ROMANS  13:  1—14^^^^  4^        529 

ye  have  no  need  that  I  write  unto  you;  for  ye  ^ui'Jfelveycnow 
perfectly  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so  cometh  as  ^  tJpef  ^  the 
night,"  1  Thess.  5:1,2.  2.  Though  they  knew  not^hfn  it^as 
to  be,  they  knew  that  it  was  not  to  happen  imme^at^y,<fior 
until  a  great  apostacy  had  occurred.  "  Now  we  be?|iecSf}'A. 
brethren,  by  (or  concerning)  the  coming  of  the  Lord  J'eju^anf^^ 


our  gathering  together  to  him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shAeWn 
mind  *  *  *  as  that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand.  Let  no  man 
deceive  you  by  any  means:  for  that  day  shall  not  come, 
except  there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be 
revealed,  &c."  2  Thess.  2:  1 — 3,  and  v.  5,  "  Remember  ye  not 
that  when  I  was  yet  with  you  I  told  you  these  things  ?"  Be- 
sides this  distinct  assertion  that  the  second  advent  of  Christ 
was  not  to  occur  before  the  revelation  of  the  man  of  sin,  there  are 
several  other  predictions  in  the  writings  of  Paul  which  refer  to 
future  events,  which  necessarily  imply  his  knowledge  of  the  fact, 
that  the  day  of  judgment  was  not  immediately  at  hand,  1  Tim. 
4:  1 — 5.  Rom,  11:  25.  The  numerous  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  relating  to  the  future  conversion  of  the  Jews,  and  va- 
rious other  events,  were  known  to  the  apostles,  and  precluded  the 
possibility  of  their  believing  that  the  world  was  to  come  to  an 
end  before  these  prophecies  were  fulfilled.  3.  We  are  not 
to  understand  the  expressions  day  of  the  Lord,  the  appearing 
of  Christ,  the  coyning  of  the  Son  of  man,  in  all  cases  in  the 
same  way.  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  a  very  familiar  expression 
in  the  scriptures  to  designate  any  time  of  the  special  manifes- 
tation of  the  divine  presence,  either  for  judgment  or  mercy; 
see  Ez.  13:  5.  Joel  1:  15.  Is.  2:  12.  13:  6,  9.  So  also  God  or 
Christ  is  said  to  come  to  any  person  or  place,  when  he  makes 
any  remarkable  exhibition  of  his  power  or  grace.  Hence  the 
Son  of  man  was  to  come  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  be- 
fore the  people  of  that  generation  all  perished;  and  the  sum- 
mons of  death  is  sometimes  represented  as  the  coming  of  Christ 
to  judge  the  soul.  What  is  tiic  meaning  of  such  expressions 
must  be  determined  by  the  context,  in  each  particular  case. 
4.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  inferred  from  such  declarations  as 
''the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand;"  "the  coming  of  the  Lord 
draweth  nigh;"  "  the  judge  is  at  the  door;"  &c.,  that  those  who 
made  them  supposed  that  the  last  advent  and  final  judgment 
were  to  take   place  immediately.     They  expressly  assert  the 

67 


•;«> 


530  ^  '^ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

#   r 

contrary  as'ihasjust  been  shown.  5.  The  situation  of  the  early 
Christians  was,  in  this  respect,  simihir  to  ours.  They  believed 
that  Christ  was  to  appear  the  second  lime  without  sin  unto  sal- 
vation,''but  when  this  advent  was  to  take  place  they  did  not 
kiTow;-  they  looked  and  longed  for  the  appearing  of  the  great 
Grod^heir  Saviour,  as  we  do  now;  and  the  prospect  of  this  event 
opEraMd  upon  them  as  it  should  do  upon  us,  as  a  constant  mo- 
tive to  watchfulness  and  diligence,  that  we  may  be  found  of  him 
in  peace.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the  scriptures,  nor  in 
this  immediate  context,  which  requires  us  to  suppose  that  Paul 
intended  to  say  that  the  time  of  the  second  advent  was  at  hand, 
when  he  tells  his  readers  that  their  salvation  was  nearer  than 
when  they  believed. 

The  third  and  most  common  as  well  as  natural  interpretation 
of  this  passage  is,  that  Paul  meant  simply  to  remind  them  that 
the  time  of  deliverance  was  near;  that  the  difficulties  and  sins 
with  which  they  had  to  contend  would  soon  be  dispersed  as 
the  shades  and  mists  of  night  before  the  rising  day.  The  sal- 
vation, therefore,  here  intended,  is  the  consummation  of  the 
work  of  Christ  in  their  deliverance  from  this  present  evil 
world,  and  introduction  into  the  purity  and  blessedness  of 
heaven.  Eternity  is  just  at  hand,  is  the  solemn  consideration 
that  Paul  urges  on  his  readers  as  a  motive  for  devotion  and 
diligence. 

(12)  The  night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand:  let  us 
therefore  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on 
the  armour  of  light.  The  general  sentiment  of  this  verse  is 
very  obvious.  Night  or  darkness  is  the  common  emblem  of 
sin  and  sorrow;  day  or  light  that  of  knowledge,  purity  and 
happiness.  The  meaning  of  the  first  clause,  therefore,  is,  that 
the  time  of  sin  and  sorrow  is  nearly  over,  that  of  holiness 
and  happiness  is  at  hand.  The  particular  form  and  application 
of  this  general  sentiment  depend,  however,  on  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  the  preceding  verse.  If  that  verse  refers  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  then  Paul  means  to  say  that  the  night 
of  persecution  was  nearly  gone,  and  the  day  of  peace  and  pros- 
perity to  the  Gentile  churches  was  at  hand.  But  if  v.  11  refers 
to  final  salvation,  then  this  verse  means  that  the  sins  and  sor- 
rows of  this  life  will  soon  be  over,  and  the  day  of  eternal  bless- 
edness is  about  to  dawn.     The  latter  view  is  to  be  preferred. 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  531 

Paul  continues  this  beautiful  lisure  through  the  verse. 
Therefore  let  us  cast  off  the  ivorks  of  darkness,  and  let  2is 
2mt  on  the  armour  of  light.  That  is,  let  us  renounce  those 
things  which  need  to  be  concealed,  and  clothe  ourselves  with 
those  which  are  suited  to  the  light.  The  luorks  of  darkness 
are  those  works  which  men  are  accustomed  to  commit  in  the 
dark,  i.  e.  all  evil  works;  and  armour  of  light  means  those 
virtues  and  good  deeds  which  men  are  not  ashamed  of,  because 
they  will  bear  to  be  seen.  Paul  probably  used  the  word  (oVXa) 
armour  instead  of  works,  because  these  virtues  constitute  the 
offensive  and  defensive  weapons  with  which  we  are  here  to 
contend  against  sin  and  evil;  see  Eph.  6:  11. 

(13)  Let  us  walk  honestly  as  in  the  day;  not  in  rioting 
and  drunkenness;  not  in  chambering  and.  ivantonness;  not 
in  strife  and  envying.  This  verse  is  an  amplification  of  the 
preceding,  stating  some  of  those  works  of  darkness  which  we 
are  to  put  off;  as  v.  14  states  what  is  the  armour  of  light  which  we 
are  to  put  on.  The  word  (ejrf5(;v]fxovw£)  rendered  honestly  means 
becomingly ,  properly.  There  are  three  classes  of  sins  speci- 
fied in  this  verse,  to  each  of  which  two  words  are  appropriated, 
viz.  intemperance,  impurity  and  discord.  Rioting  and  drunk- 
enness belong  to  the  first;  the  word  (xiJfjLos),  appropriately  ren- 
dered rioting,  is  used  both  in  reference  to  the  disorderly 
religious  festivals  kept  in  honour  of  Bachus,  and  to  the  common 
boisterous  carousing  of  intemperate  young  men,  (see  Passow, 
Vol.  1,  p.  924).  The  words  chajnbering  and  toantonness 
include  all  kinds  of  uncleanncss;  and  strife  and  envying  all 
kinds  of  unholy  emulation  and  discord. 

(14)  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  be  as  he 
was.  To  put  on  Christ  signifies  to  be  intimately  united  to 
him,  so  that  he,  and  not  we,  may  appear,  Gal.  3:27.  '  Let  not 
your  own  evil  deeds  be  seen  (i.  e.  do  not  commit  such),  but  let 
what  Christ  was  appear  in  all  your  conduct,  as  eifectually  as  if 
clothed  with  the  garment  of  his  virtues.' 

And  make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts 
thereof  That  is,  let  it  not  be  your  care  to  gratify  the  flesh. 
By  flesh  in  this  passage  is  generally,  perhaps,  understood  the 
body;  so  that  the  prohibition  is  confined  to  the  vicious  indul- 
gence of  the  sensual  appetites.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  this  restriction.     As  the  word  is  constantly 


532  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

used  by  Paul  for  whatever  is  corrupt,  and  in  the  preceding 
verse  the  sins  of  envy  and  contention  are  specially  mentioned, 
it  may  be  understood  more  generally,  '  Do  not  indulge  the 
desires  of  your  corrupt  nature.' 

Doctrines. 

1.  Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution,  i.  e.  it  is  the  will 
of  God  that  it  should  exist  and  be  respected  and  obeyed,  v,  2. 

2.  While  '  government  is  of  God,  the  form  is  of  men.'  God 
has  never  enjoined  any  one  form  obligatory  on  all  communities; 
but  has  simply  laid  down  certain  principles,  applicable  to  rulers 
and  subjects  under  ever}'  form  in  which  governments  exist, 
vs.  1 — 7. 

3.  The  obedience,  which  the  scriptures  command  us  to  render 
to  our  rulers,  is  not  unlimited;  there  are  cases  in  which  diso- 
bedience is  a  duty.  This  is  evident,  first,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case.  The  command  to  obey  magistrates  is,  from  its 
nature,  a  command  to  obey  them  as  magistrates  in  the  exercise 
of  their  rightful  authority.  They  are  not  to  be  obeyed  as  priests 
or  as  parents,  but  as  civil  rulers.  No  one  doubts  that  the  pre- 
cept, "  Children  obey  your  parents  in  all  things,"  is  a  command 
to  obey  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  rightful  parental  authority, 
and  imposes  no  obligation  to  implicit  and  passive  obedience. 
A  parent,  who  should  claim  the  power  of  a  sovereign  over  his 
children,  would  have  no  right  to  their  obedience.  The  case  is 
still  plainer  with  regard  to  the  command,  "  Wives  submit  to 
your  own  husbands."  Secondly,  from  the  fact  that  the  .same 
inspired  men,  who  enjoin,  in  such  general  terms,  obedience  to 
rulers,  themselves  uniformly  and  openly  disobeyed  them  when- 
ever their  commands  were  inconsistent  with  other  and  higher 
obligations.  "  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men,"  was 
the  principle  which  the  early  Christians  avowed  and  on  which 
they  acted.  They  disobeyed  the  Jewish  and  Heathen  authori- 
ties w^henevcr  they  required  them  to  do  any  thing  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God.  There  are  cases,  therefore,  in  which  disobe- 
dience is  a  duty.  How  far  the  rightful  authority  of  rulers  ex- 
tends, the  precise  point  at  which  the  obligation  to  obedience 
ceases,  must  often  be  a  difficult  question,  and  each  case  must  be 
decided  on  its  own  merits.  The  same  difficulty  exists  in  fixing 
the  limits  of  the  authority  of  parents  over  their  children,  bus- 


ROMANS  13:  1—14.  5S3 

bands  over  theh*  wives,  masters  over  their  servants.  Tliis, 
however,  is  a  theoretical  rather  than  a  practical  difficulty. 
The  general  principles  on  which  the  question  in  regard  to  any 
given  case  is  to  be  decided  are  sufficiently  plain.  No  command 
to  do  any  thing  morally  wrong  can  be  binding;  nor  can  any 
which  transcends  the  rightful  authority  of  the  power  whence  it 
emanates.  What  that  rightful  authority  is,  must  be  determined 
by  the  institutions  and  laws  of  the  land,  or  from  prescription 
and  usage,  or  from  the  nature  and  design  of  the  office  with 
which  the  magistrate  is  invested.  The  right  of  deciding  on  all 
these  points,  and  determining  where  the  obligation  to  oljcdience 
ceases,  and  the  duty  of  resistance  begins,  must,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  rest  with  the  subject,  and  not  with  the  ruler.  The 
apostles  and  early  Christians  decided  this  |)oint  for  themselves, 
and  did  not  leave  the  decision  with  the  Jewish  or  Roman  au- 
thorities. Like  all  other  questions  of  duty,  it  is  to  be  decided 
on  our  responsibility  to  God  and  our  fellow  men,  vs.  1 — 7. 

4.  The  design  of  civil  government  is  not  to  promote  the  ad- 
vantage of  rulers  but  of  the  ruled.  They  are  ordained  and  inves- 
ted with  authority  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a  praise  to 
them  that  do  well.  They  are  the  ministers  of  God  for  this  end, 
and  are  appointed  for  "  this  very  thing."  On  this  ground  our 
obligation  to  obedience  rests,  and  the  obligation  ceases  wlien  this 
design  is  systematically,  constantly  and  notoriously  disregarded. 
Where  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  the  government  exists,  or 
where  the  form  of  it  is  incompatible  with  the  design  of  its  insti- 
tution, the  governed  must  have  a  right  to  remedy  the  evil.  But 
they  cannot  hav^e  the  moral  right  to  remedy  one  evil,  by  the 
production  of  a  greater.  And,  therefore,  as  there  are  few 
greater  evils  than  instability  and  uncertainty  in  governments, 
the  cases  in  which  revolutions  are  justifiable  must  be  exceedingly 
rare,  vs.  3 — 7. 

5.  The  proper  sphere  of  civil  government  is  the  civil  and 
social  relations  of  men  and  their  temporal  welfare;  conscience, 
and  of  course  religion,  are  beyond  its  jurisdiction,  except  so  Air 
as  the  best  interests  of  civil  society  are  necessarily  connected 
with  tliem.  What  extent  of  ground  this  exception  covers,  ever 
has  been,  and  probably  will  ever  remain  a  matter  of  dispute. 
Still  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  it  is  an  exception;  religion  and 


534  ROMANS  13:  1—14. 

morality  as  such  are  not  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of  the 
civil  authority.  To  justify  the  interference  of  the  civil  govern- 
ment, therefore,  in  any  given  case  with  these  important  subjects, 
an  exception  must  be  made  out.  It  must  be  shown  that  an 
opinion  or  a  religion  is  not  only  false,  but  that  its  prevalence  is 
incompatible  with  the  rights  of  those  members  of  the  community 
who  are  not  embraced  within  its  communion,  before  the  civil  au- 
thority can  be  authorized  to  interfere  for  its  suppression.  It  is 
then  to  be  suppressed  not  as  a  religion  but  as  a  public  nuisance. 
God  has  ordained  civil  government  for  the  promotion  of  the 
welfare  of  men  as  members  of  the  same  civil  society;  and  pa- 
rental government  and  the  instruction  and  discipline  of  the 
church,  for  their  moral  and  religious  improvement.  And  the 
less  interference  their  is  between  these  two  great  institutions 
in  the  promotion  of  their  respective  objects  the  better.  We  do 
not  find  in  the  New  Testament  any  commands  addressed  to 
magistrates  with  regard  to  the  suppression  of  heresies  or  the 
support  of  the  truth;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  do  we  meet  with 
any  directions  to  the  church  to  interfere  with  matters  pertaining 
to  the  civil  government,  vs.  3 — 6. 

6.  The  discharge  of  all  the  social  and  civil  duties  of  life  is 
to  the  Christian  a  matter  of  religious  obligation,  vs.  5 — 7. 

Remm'ks. 

1.  The  Christian  religion  is  adapted  to  all  states  of  society 
and  all  forms  of  civil  government.  As  the  Spirit  of  God,  when 
it  enters  any  human  heart,  leaves  unmolested  what  is  peculiar 
to  its  individual  character,  as  far  as  it  is  innocent,  and  effects 
the  reformation  of  what  is  evil,  not  by  violence,  but  by  a 
sweetly  constraining  influence;  so  the  religion  of  Christ,  when 
it  enters  any  community  of  men,  does  not  assail  their  form  of 
government,  whether  despotic  or  free;  and  if  there  is  any  thing 
in  their  institutions  inconsistent  with  its  spirit,  it  is  changed  by 
its  silent  operation  on  the  heart  and  conscience,  rather  than  by 
direct  denunciation.  It  has  thus,  without  rebellion  or  violent 
convulsions,  curbed  the  exercise  of  despotic  power,  and  wrought 
the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  greater  part  of  Christen- 
dom, vs.  1 — 14. 

2.  The  gospel  is  equally  hostile  to  tyranny  and  anarchy.     It 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  535 

teaches  rulers  that  they  are  mhiisters  of  God  for  the  public 
good;  and  it  teaches  subjects  to  be  obedient  to  magistrates  not 
only  for  fear  but  also  for  conscience  sake,  v.  5. 

3.  God  is  to  be  recognised  as  ordering  the  affiiirs  of  civil 
society.  "He  removeth  kings,  and  he  setteth  up  kings;"  by 
him  "  kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice."  It  is  enough, 
therefore,  to  secure  the  obedience  of  the  Christian,  that  in  the 
providence  of  God,  he  finds  the  power  of  government  lodged  in 
certain  hands.  The  early  Christians  would  have  been  in  constant 
perplexity,  had  it  been  incumbent  on  them,  amidst  the  frequent 
poisonings  and  assassinations  of  the  imperial  palace,  the  tumults 
of  the  pretorian  guards,  and  the  proclamation  by  contending 
armies  of  rival  candidates,  to  decide  on  the  individual  who  had 
de  jure  the  power  of  the  sword,  before  they  could  conscien- 
tiously obey,  vs.  1 — 5. 

4.  When  rulers  become  a  terror  to  the  good,  and  a  praise  to 
them  that  do  evil,  they  may  still  be  tolerated  and  obeyed,  not 
however,  of  right,  but  because  the  remedy  may  be  worse  than 
the  disease,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  Did  genuine  Christian  love  prevail,  it  would  secure  the 
right  discharge,  not  only  of  the  duties  of  rulers  towards  their 
subjects  and  of  subjects  towards  their  rulers,  but  of  all  the 
relative  social  duties  of  life;  for  he  that  loveth  another  fulfiUeth 
the  law,  vs.  7,  8. 

6.  The  nearness  of  eternity  should  operate  on  all  Christians 
as  a  motive  to  purity  and  devotedness  to  God.  The  night  is 
far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand,  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
when  we  believed,  vs.  13,  14. 

7.  All  Christian  duty  is  included  in  putting  on  the  Lord 
Jesus;  in  being  like  him,  having  that  similarity  of  temper  and 
conduct  which  results  from  being  intimately  united  to  him  l)y 
the  Holy  Spirit,  v.  14. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Contents. 
As  in  chapter  12,  Paul  had  insisted  principally  upon  moral  and 
religious  duties,  and  in  chapter  13,  on  those  of  a  jjolitioal  cha- 
racter, he  here  treats  particularly  of  the  duties  of  church  mem- 


536  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

bers  towards  each  other,  in  relation  to  matters  not  binding  on 
the  conscience.  There  are  two  points  specially  presented;  the 
first  is  the  manner  in  which  scrupulous  Christians,  who  make 
conscience  of  matters  of  indifference,  are  to  be  treated,  vs.  1 — 12; 
and  the  second,  the  manner  in  which  those  who  are  strong  in 
faith  should  use  their  Christian  liberty,  vs.  13 — 23. 


CHAP.  14:  1—23. 

t/lnaJysis. 

Scrupulous  Christians,  whose  consciences  are  weak,  are  to 
be  kindly  received,  and  not  harshly  condemned,  v.  1.  This 
direction  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  those  who  were 
scrupulous  as  to  eating  particular  kinds  of  meat,  and  the  propri- 
ety of  neglecting  the  sacred  days  appointed  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
Such  persons  are  not  to  be  condemned,  1.  Because  this  weak- 
ness is  not  inconsistent  with  piety;  notwithstanding  their  doubts 
on  these  points,  God  has  received  them,  v.  3.  2.  Because  one 
Christian  has  no  right  to  judge  another  (except  where  Christ  has 
expressly  authorized  it  and  given  him  the  rule  of  judgment);  to 
his  own  master  he  stands  or  falls,  v.  4.  3.  Because  such  harsh 
treatment  is  unnecessary;  God  can  and  will  preserve  such  per- 
sons, notwithstanding  their  feebleness,  v.  4.  4.  Because  they 
act  religiously,  or  out  of  regard  to  God  in  this  matter;  and, 
therefore,  live  according  to  the  great  Christian  principle,  that 
no  man  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  man  dieth  to  himself,  but 
whether  he  lives  or  dies  belongs  to  God,  vs.  6 — 9.  On  these 
grounds  we  should  abstain  from  condemning  or  treating  con- 
temptuously our  weaker  brethren,  remembering  that  we  are  all 
to  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  vs.  10 — 12. 

As  to  the  use  of  Christian  liberty,  the  apostle  teaches  that  it 
is  not  to  be  given  up  or  denied;  that  is,  we  are  not  to  make  things 
sinful  which  are  in  themselves  indifferent,  v.  14.  But  it  does 
not  follow  that  because  a  thing  is  not  wrong  in  itself,  it  is  right 
for  us  to  indulge  in  it.  Our  liberty  is  to  be  asserted,  but  it  is 
to  be  exercised  in  such  away  as  not  to  injure  others.  We  must 
not  put  a  stumbling  block  in  our  brother's  way,  v.  12.  This 
consideration  of  othci-s  iu  the  use  of  our  liberty  is  enforced, 
1.  From  the  great  law  of  love;  it  is  inconsistent  with  Christian 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  537 

charity,  for  our  own  gratification,  to  injure  a  brother  for  whom 
Christ  died,  v.  15.  2.  From  a  regard  to  the  honour  of  religion. 
We  must  not  cause  that  which  is  good  to  be  evil  spoken  of,  v. 
16.  3.  From  the  consideration  that  religion  does  not  consist  in 
such  things,  vs.  17,  IS.  4.  Because  we  are  bound  to  promote 
the  peace  and  edification  of  the  church,  v.  19.  5.  Though  the 
things  in  question  may  be  in  themselves  indifferent,  it  is  morally 
wrong  to  indulge  in  them  to  the  injury  of  others,  vs.  20,  21. 
6.  The  course  enjoined  by  the  apostle  requires  no  concession 
of  principle,  or  adoption  of  error;  we  can  retain  our  full  belief 
of  the  indifference  of  things  which  God  has  not  pronounced 
sinful;  but  those  who  have  not  our  faith  cannot  act  upon  it,  and 
therefore,  should  not  be  encouraged  so  to  do,  vs.  22,  23. 

Commentary. 

(1)  Him  that  is  weak  in  faith  receive,  hut  not  to  doubtful 
disputations.  This  verse  contains  the  general  direction  that 
weak  and  scrupulous  brethren  are  to  be  kindly  received,  and 
not  harshly  condemned.  IVeak  in  faith,  i.  e.  weak  as  to  faith 
(ffio'TSi).  Faith  here  means  persuasion  of  the  truth;  a  man  may 
have  a  strong  persuasion  as  to  certain  truths,  and  a  very  weak 
one  as  to  others.  Some  of  the  early  Christians  were,  no  doubt, 
fully  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  JNIessiah,  and  yet  felt  great 
doubts  whether  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats 
was  entirely  done  away.  This  was  certainly  a  great  defect  of 
Christian  character,  and  arose  from  the  want  of  an  intelligent  and 
firm  conviction  of  the  gratuitous  nature  of  Justification,  and  of 
the  spirituality  of  the  gospel.  Since,  however,  this  weakness 
was  not  inconsistent  with  religion,  such  persons  were  to  be 
received.  The  word  {■z^odXafiSavoixai)  rendered  receive,  has  the 
general  signification  to  take  to  one-self,  and  this  is  its  meaning 
here.  '  Him  that  is  weak  in  faith  take  to  yourselves  as  a 
Christian  brother,  treat  him  kindly;'  see  Acts  28:  2.  Rom. 
15:  7.  Philemon  vs.  15,  17. 

There  is  much  more  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words 
[^r\  sig  Jiaxpitfejc:  (5iaXo;n5'fji,5v)  translated  Jiot  to  doul)tful  disputa- 
tions. The  former  of  the  two  important  words  of  this  clause 
means  the  faculty  of  discrimination,  1  Cor.  13:  10;  the  act 
of  disceniini:;,  Ilel).  5:  14,  and  then  dijudication,  judgment. 
It  may  also  signify  doubt  or  inward  conJUct;  see  the  use  of 

6S 


538  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

the  verb  in  ch.  4:  20.  It  is  taken  in  this  sense  in  our  version, 
7iot  to  the  douhtful^iess  of  disputes,  i.  e.  not  for  the  purpose 
of  doubtful  disputation.  The  word  rendered  disputations 
means  also  thoughts,  opinions.  The  clause  may  therefore 
mean  not  to  the  judging  of  (his)  opinions,  i.  e.  not  for  the 
purpose  of  judging  his  opinions;  do  not  act  the  part  of  a  judge 
over  him.  This  sense  seems  to  be  decidedly  preferable  on  ac- 
count of  the  context,  as  Paul  enforces  this  direction  by  showing 
them  that  they  had  no  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  brethren 
in  such  matters. 

(2)  For  one  believeth  he  may  eat  all  things:  another,  loho 
is  weak,  eateth  herbs.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  weakness 
of  faith  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  v.  1.  It  was  a  scrupu- 
lousness about  the  use  of  things  considered  as  unclean,  and  with 
regard  to  sacred  days,  v.  5.  There  were  two  sources  whence 
the  early  Christian  church  was  disturbed  by  the  question  about 
iTieats.  The  first,  and  by  far  the  most  important,  was  the  natu- 
ral prejudices  of  the  Jewish  converts.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
surprise  that,  educated  as  they  had  been  in  a  strict  regard  for 
the  Mosaic  law,  they  found  it  difficult  to  enter  at  once  into  the 
full  liberty  of  the  gospel,  and  disencumber  their  consciences  of 
all  their  early  opinions.  Even  the  apostles  were  slow  in 
shaking  them  off;  and  the  church  in  Jerusalem  seems  to  have 
long  continued  in  the  observance  of  a  great  part  of  the  cere- 
monial law.  These  scruples  were  not  confined  to  the  use  of 
meats  pronounced  unclean  in  the  Old  Testament,  but,  as  appears 
from  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  extended  to  partaking 
of  any  thing  which  had  been  offered  to  an  idol;  and,  in  these 
latter  scruples,  some  even  of  the  Gentile  converts  may  have 
joined.  The  second  source  of  trouble  on  this  subject  was  less 
prevalent  and  less  excusable.  It  was  the  influence  of  the  mystic 
ascetic  philosophy  of  the  east,  which  had  devoloped  itself 
among  the  Jews  in  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Essenes,  and 
which,  among  the  Christian  churches,  particularly  those  of  Asia 
Minor,  produced  the  evils  which  Paul  describes  in  his  Epistles 
to  the  Colossians  (ch.  2:  10—23),  and  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  4: 
1 — 8),  and  which  subsequently  gave  rise  to  all  the  errors  of 
Gnosticism.  There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  persons 
to  whom  Paul  refers  in  this  passage  were  under  the  influence 
of  this  philosophy.    The  fact  that  they  abstained  from  all  meat, 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  539 

as  seems  to  be  intimated  in  this  verse,  may  have  arisen  from 
the  constant  apprehension  of  eating  meat  which,  after  having 
been  presented  in  sacrifice,  was  sold  in  the  market  place,  or 
which  had  in  some  other  way  been  rendered  unclean.*  Every 
thing  in  the  context  is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that 
Jewish  scruples  were  the  source  of  the  difficulty;  and  as  these 
were  by  far  the  most  common  cause,  no  other  need  be  here  as- 
sumed. 

(3)  Let  not  him  that  cateth  despise  him  that  eateth  not; 
and  let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth; 

for  God  hath  receii^ed  him.  There  is  mutual  forbearance  to 
be  exercised  in  relation  to  this  subject.  The  strong  are  not  to 
despise  the  weak  as  superstitious  and  imbecile;  nor  the  weak  to 
condemn  those  who  disregard  their  scruples.  Points  of  indif- 
ference are  not  to  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Chris- 
tian fellowship.  For  God  hath  received  him,  i.  e.  God  has 
recognised  him  as  a  Christian,  and  received  him  into  his  king- 
dom. This  reason  is  not  designed  to  enforce  merely  the  latter 
of  the  two  duties  here  enjoined,  but  is  applied  to  both.  As 
God  does  not  make  eating  or  not  eating  certain  kinds  of  food 
a  condition  of  acceptance,  Christians  ought  not  to  allow  it  to 
interfere  with  their  communion  as  brethren.  The  Jewish  con- 
verts were  perhaps  quite  as  much  disposed  to  condemn  the 
Gentile  Christians,  as  the  latter  were  to  despise  tlie  Christian 
Jews;  Paul,  therefore,  frames  his  admonition  so  as  to  reach  both 
classes.  It  appears,  however,  from  the  first  verse,  and  from  the 
whole  context,  that  the  Gentiles  were  principally  intended. 

(4)  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ? 
to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  If  God  has  not 
made  the  point  in  question  a  term  of  communion,  we  have  no 
right  to  do  so;  we  have  no  right  to  exercise  the  office  of  judge 
over  the  servant  of  another.  This  is  the  second  reason  for 
mutual  forbearance  with  regard  to  such  matters  as  divided  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  converts.  It  cannot  fail  to  be  remarked 
how  differently  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  same  tilings  under 
different  circumstances.  He  who  circumcised  Timothy,  who 
conformed  in  many  things  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  to  the  Jews 

•  Josephus  states  in  his  life  (ch.  -23)  tliat  certain  .Tewish  priests,  wliile  at  Rome, 
lived  entirely  upon  fruit,  from  the  dread  of  eating  any  thing  unclean. 


540  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

became  a  Jew,  and  who  here  exhorts  Christians  to  regard  their 
external  observances  as  matters  of  indifference,  resisted  to  the 
uttermost  as  soon  as  these  things  were  urged  as  matters  of  im- 
portance, or  were  insisted  upon  as  necessary  to  acceptance  with 
God.  He  would  not  allow  Titus  to  be  circumcised,  nor  give  place 
even  for  an  hour  to  false  brethren,  who  had  come  in  privily  to 
spy  out  our  liberty.  (Gal.  2:  3,  5.)  He  warned  the  Galatians 
that  if  they  were  circumcised,  Christ  w^ould  profit  them  nothing; 
that  they  renounced  the  whole  method  of  gratuitous  justification, 
and  forfeited  its  blessings,  if  they  sought  acceptance  on  any 
such  terms.  How  liberal  and  how  faithful  was  the  apostle! 
He  would  concede  every  thing,  and  become  all  things  to  all 
men,  where  principle  was  not  at  stake;  but  when  it  was,  he 
would  concede  nothing  for  a  moment.  What  might  be  safely 
granted,  if  asked  and  given  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  became 
a  fatal  apostacy  when  demanded  as  a  matter  of  necessity  or  a 
condition  of  salvation. 

To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth,  i.  e.  it  belongs 
to  his  own  master  to  decide  his  case,  to  acquit  or  to  condemn. 
These  terms  are  often  used  in  this  judicial  sense,  Ps.  1 :  5.  76:  7. 
Luke  21:36.  Rev.  6 :  17.  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up:  for  God  is 
able  to  make  him  stand,  i.  e.  he  shall  stand,  or  be  accepted,  for 
God  has  the  right  and  the  will  to  make  him  stand,  that  is,  to  ac- 
quit and  save  him.*  This  clause  seems  designed  to  urge  a  further 
reason  for  forbearance  and  kindness  towards  those  who  differ 
from  us  on  matters  of  indifference.  However  weak  a  man's 
faith  may  be,  if  he  is  a  Christian,  he  should  be  recognised  and 
treated  as  such;  for  his  weakness  is  not  inconsistent  with  his 
acceptance  with  God,  and,  therefore,  is  no  ground  or  necessity 
for  our  proceeding  against  him  with  severity.  The  objects  of 
discipline  arc  the  reformation  of  offenders  and  the  purification 
of  the  church;  but  neither  of  these  objects  requires  the  con- 
demnation of  those  brethren  whom  God  has  received.  "  God 
is  able  to  make  him  stand;"  he  has  not  only  the  power  but  the 
disposition  and  determination.  Compare  ch.  11:  23,  "  For  God 
is  able  to  graft  them  in  again." 

*  Gott  als  der  oberste  Richter  kann  erkliiron,  dass  er  ins  Reich  Christi  eingehen 
dlirfe,  auch  wenn  er  noch  jencn  schwachen  Glaubcn  haben  sollte,  und  die  Men- 
schen  ihn  dcswegen  fur  verworfcn  crklaren  solltcn. — Tiiolfck. 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  541 

(5)  One  man  esteemeth  one  dm}  above  anolJier;  another 
esteemeth  every  clay  alike.  As  the  law  of  Moses  not  only  made 
a  distinction  between  meats  as  clean  and  unclean,  but  also  pre- 
scribed the  observance  of  certain  days  as  religious  festivals,  the 
Jewish  converts  were  as  scrupulous  with  regard  to  this  latter 
point  as  the  former.  Some  Christians,  therefore,  thought  it  in- 
cumbent on  them  to  observe  these  days;  others  were  of  a  contrary- 
opinion.  Both  w^ere  to  be  tolerated.  The  veneration  of  these 
days  was  a  weakness,  but  still  it  was  not  a  vital  matter,  and, 
therefore,  should  not  be  allowed  to  distiu'b  tlie  liarmony  of 
Christian  intercourse,  or  the  peace  of  the  church.  It  is  obvious 
from  the  context  and  from  such  parallel  passages  as  (ial.  4:  10, 
"  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years,"  and 
Col.  2:  16,  "Let  no  man  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in 
respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  sabbath  days,'' 
that  Paul  has  reference  to  the  Jewish  festivals,  and,  therefore, 
his  language  cannot  properly  be  applied  to  the  Christian  sab- 
bath. The  sentiment  of  the  passage  is  this,  '  One  man  observes 
the  Jewish  festivals,  another  man  does  not.'  Such  we  know 
was  the  fact  in  the  apostolic  church,  even  among  those  wlio 
agreed  in  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  oicn  mind.  Tlie 
principle,  which  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  this  case,  is 
the  same  as  that  which  he  enjoined  in  relation  to  the  other,  viz. 
that  one  man  should  not  be  forced  to  act  according  to  another 
man's  conscience,  but  every  one  should  be  satisfied  in  his  own 
mind,  and  be  careful  not  to  do  what  he  thought  wrong. 

(6)  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the 
Lord;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he 
doth  not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  &c. 
That  is,  both  parties  are  actuated  by  religious  motives  in  what 
they  do;  they  regulate  their  conduct  by  a  regard  to  the  will  of 
God,  and,  therefore,  although  some  from  weakness  or  ignorance 
may  err  as  to  the  rule  of  dut}^,  they  are  not  to  be  despised  or 
cast  out  as  evil.  The  strong  should  not  contemn  the  scrupu- 
lous, nor  the  scrupulous  be  censorious  towards  the  strong.  This 
is  a  fourth  argument  in  favour  of  the  mutual  forbearance  en- 
joined in  the  first  verse.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord: 
for  he  give th  God  thanks,  k.c.  That  is,  he  who  disregards 
the  Mosaic  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and 


542  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

uses  indiscriminately  the  common  articles  of  food,  acts  reli- 
giously in  so  doing,  as  is  evident  from  his  giving  God  thanks. 
He  could  not  delihcrately  thank  God  for  what  he  supposed  God 
had  forbidden  him  to  use.  In  like  manner,  he  that  abstains 
from  certain  meats,  does  it  religiously,  for  he  also  giveth  thanks 
to  God;  which  implies  that  he  regards  himself  as  acting  agree- 
ably to  the  divine  will. 

(7)  For  none  of  us  liveth  to  himseJf,  and  no  man  dieth  to 
himself.  This  verse  is  an  amplification  and  confirination  of 
the  preceding.  The  principle  on  which  both  the  classes  of  per- 
sons just  referred  to  acted,  is  a  true  Christian  principle.  No 
Christian  considers  himself  as  his  own  master,  or  at  liberty  to 
regulate  his  conduct  according  to  his  own  will,  or  for  his  own 
ends;  he  is  the  servant  of  God,  and,  therefore,  endeavours  to 
live  according  to  his  will  and  for  his  glory.  They,  therefore, 
who  act  on  this  principle,  are  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  true 
Christians,  although  they  may  differ  as  to  what  the  will  of  God, 
in  particular  cases,  requires.  No  man  dieth  to  himself,  i.  e. 
death  as  well  as  life  must  be  left  in  the  hands  of  God,  to  be  di- 
rected by  his  will  and  for  his  glory.  The  sentiment  is,  we  are 
entirely  his,  having  no  authority  over  our  life  or  death. 

(8)  For  whether  ive  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord;  or  whether 
we  die,  ive  die  unto  the  Lord:  ivhether  ivc  live,  therefore,  or 
die,  ive  arc  the  Lord\^.  The  same  sentiment  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  rather  more  fully  and  explicitly  stated.  In  v.  7, 
Paul  had  stated,  negatively,  that  the  Christian  does  not  live  ac- 
cording to  his  own  will,  or  for  his  own  pleasure;  he  here  states, 
affirmatively,  that  he  does  live  according  to  the  will  of  Christ 
and  for  his  glory.  This  being  the  case,  he  is  a  true  Christian; 
he  belongs  to  Christ,  and  should  be  so  recognised  and  treated. 
It  is  very  obvious,  especially  from  the  following  verse,  which 
speaks  of  death  and  resurrection,  that  Christ  is  intended  by  the 
word  Lord  in  this  verse.  It  is  for  Christ,  and  in  subjection  to 
his  will,  that  every  Christian  endeavours  to  regulate  his  heart, 
his  conscience  and  his  life.  This  is  the  profoundest  homage 
the  creature  can  render  to  his  Creator;  and  as  it  is  the  service 
which  the  scriptures  require  us  to  render  to  the  Redeemer,  it  of 
necessity  supposes  that  Christ  is  God.  This  is  rendered  still 
plainer  by  the  interchange,  throughout  the  passage  (vs.  6 — P), 
of  the  terms  Lord  and  God.     '  He  that  cateth,  eateth  to  the 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  543 

Lord,  for  he  giveth  God  thanks.  We  live  unto  the  Lord;  we 
are  the  Lord's.  For  to  this  end  Christ  died  and  rose  that  he 
might  be  the  Lord,  &c.'  It  is  clear  that,  to  the  apostle's  mind, 
the  idea  that  Christ  is  God  was  perfectly  familiar. 

(9)  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  tr rived,* 
t/iat  he  might  be  the  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  tiring.  The 
dominion  which  Christ,  as  Mediator  or  Redeemer,  exercises 
over  his  people,  and  which  they  gladly  recognise,  is  the  result 
of  his  death  and  resurrection.  By  his  death  he  purchased  them 
for  his  own,  and  by  his  resurrection  he  attained  to  that  exalted 
station  which  he  now  occupies  as  Lord  over  all,  and  received 
those  gifts  which  enables  him  to  exercise  as  Mediator  this  uni- 
versal dominion.  The  exaltation  and  dominion  of  Christ  are 
frequently  represented  in  the  scriptures  as  the  reward  of  his 
sufierings,  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name;  that  at  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  &c."  Phil.  2:  8,  9.  This  au- 
thority of  Christ  over  his  people  is  not  confined  to  this  world, 
but  extends  beyond  the  grave.  He  is  Lord  l)oth  of  the  dead 
and  the  living. 

(10)  But  why  dost  thou  judge  tliy  brotlierl  or  wliy  dost 
thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother  ?  for  we  shall  all  stand  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  ChristA  In  this  and  the  following 
verses  to  the  13th,  Paul  ajjplies  his  previous  reasoning  to  the 
case  in  hand.  If  a  man  is  our  brother,  if  God  has  received 
him,  if  he  acts  from  a  sincere  desire  to  do  the  divine  will,  he 
should  not  be  condemned,  though  he  may  think  certain  things 


*  The  common  text  reads  xal  d'^sSavs  xal  avt'cTT*]  xa»  avs'^rja'sv ;  most  cor- 
rected editions  read  xai  ocws'SavS  xal  i^rjrfsv ;  and  some  omit  xai  before  d-KBavS. 
The  words  xal  dvigTri  arc  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C,  in  tlie  Coptic,  Etliiopic, 
Syriac  and  Armenian  versions,  and  by  many  of  the  fathers.  They  are  rejected  by 
Erasmus,  Bcngci,  Schmidt,  Knapp,  Lachmann  and  others.  The  words  xai  avt'^>;(T£v 
are  omitted  by  some  few  MSS.  and  fathers;  xal  i^igffsv  are  read  in  MSS.  A.  C. 
and  in  forty-four  others.  They  arc  adopted  in  the  Complutcnsian  echtion,  and  in 
those  of  Mill,  Bengcl,  Wetstcin,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  &c.  &c.  ^  These 
diversities  do  not  materially  aflcct  the  sense.  The  words  avc'tTTr;  and  d\ii^r,(jsv 
have  very  much  the  appearance  of  explanatory  glosses. 

f  Instead  of  j^PiffTou,  at  the  close  of  this  verse,  the  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  read 
Ssou,  which  is  adopted  by  Mill  and  Lachmaim.  The  common  rcaiiinc  is  support- 
ed by  the  great  majority  of  the  MSS.,  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  ahuost  all  the 
fathers.     It  is  therefore  retained  by  most  critical  editors. 


544  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

right  which  we  think  wrong;  nor  should  he  be  despised  if  he 
trammels  his  conscience  with  unnecessary  scruples.  The  former 
of  these  clauses  relates  to  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians;  the 
latter  to  the  Gentile  converts.  The  last  member  of  the  verse 
applies  to  both  classes.  As  we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ,  as  he  is  our  sole  and  final  judge,  we  should 
hot  usurp  his  prerogative  or  presume  to  condemn  those  w^hom 
he  has  received. 

(11)  For  it  is  written,  >/ls  I  live,  salt /i  the  Lord,  every  knee 
shall  boiv  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess.  This  quo- 
tation is  from  Isaiah  45:23,  "I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the 
word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness,  and  shall  not 
return,  that  unto  me  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tongue 
shall  swear."  The  apostle,  it  will  be  perceived,  does  not 
adhere  to  the  words  of  the  passage  which  he  quotes,  but  con- 
tents himself  with  giving  the  sense.  Jis  I  live,  being  the  form 
of  an  oath,  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
I  have  sworn  by  myself.  And  since,  to  swear  by  any  being, 
is  to  recognise  his  power  and  authority  over  us,  the  expressions 
every  tongue  shall  swear  and  every  tongiie  shall  confess  are 
of  similar  import.  Both  indeed  are  parallel  to  the  clause  every 
knee  shall  how,  and  are  but  different  forms  of  expressing  the 
general  idea  that  every  one  shall  submit  to  God,  i.  e.  recognise 
his  authority  as  God,  the  supreme  ruler  and  judge.  The  apostle 
evidently  considers  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  Christ 
as  being  tantamount  to  submission  to  God,  and  he  applies 
without  hesitation  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
relation  to  the  universal  dominion  of  Jehovah,  in  proof  of  the 
Redeemer's  sovereignty.  With  him,  therefore,  Jesus  Christ 
was  God.*  This  vci'se  may  be  considered  as  intended  to  con- 
firm the  truth  of  the  declaration  at  the  close  of  the  one  preceding. 
'  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;  for  it  is 
written,  to  me  every  knee  shall  bow.'  And  this  seems  the 
natural  relation  of  the  passage.  Calvin  understands  this  verse, 
however,  as  designed  to  enforce  humble  submission  to  the 
judgment  of  Christ.     'We  should  not  judge  others,  since  we 

*  Cacterum,  quae  (Jes.  4.5:  23)  de  Jchova  dicuntur,  eadcm  ad  Christum  (si 
vera  sit  lectio  tou  y^^idtw,  v.  10)  transfcrri  uh  Apostolo,  non  est  niiraiidum,  cum 
hunc  illi  arctissimeconjiinctuui  cosritaiidmn  esse,  jaerpelua  sit  twin  .hidaooium,  quo- 
liescunque  de  Messia  loquuntur,  turn  imprimis  Pauli  ct  Joaanis  scntentia. — Koppe. 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  545 

are  to  be  judged  by  Christ;  and  to  his  judgment  we  must 
humbly  bow  the  knee.'  This  is  indeed  clearly  implied,  but  it 
is  rather  an  accessory  idea,  than  the  special  design  of  the  passage. 

(12)  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  hiinself 
to  God.  '  As,  therefore,  God  is  the  supreme  judge,  and  we  are 
to  render  our  account  to  him,  we  should  await  his  decision, 
and  not  presume  to  act  the  part  of  judge  over  our  brethren.' 

(13)  Let  us  not,  therefore,  judge  one  another  any  more; 
but  judge  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  a  stumbling-block 
or  an  occasion  to  fall  in  his  brother''s  luay.  After  drawing 
the  conclusion  from  the  preceding  discussion  that  we  should 
leave  the  office  of  judging  in  the  hands  of  God,  the  apostle 
introduces  the  second  leading  topic  of  the  chapter,  viz.  the 
manner  in  which  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  exercised.  He 
teaches  that  it  is  not  enough  that  we  are  persuaded  a  certain 
course  is,  in  itself  considered,  right,  in  order  to  authorise  us  to 
pursue  it.  We  must  be  careful  that  we  do  not  injure  others  in 
the  use  of  our  liberty.  The  word  (xpIvw)  rendered  ;«^^c,  means 
also  to  determine,  to  make  up  one\s  mind.  Paul  uses  it  first  in 
the  one  sense,  and  then  in  the  other.  '  Do  not  judge  one  another, 
but  determine  to  avoid  giving  offence,'  The  words  ("Tr^ocrxo/x/jia 
and  o'xav(5aXov)  rendered  a  stumbling-block  and  an  occasion  to 
fall  do  not  differ  in  their  meaning;  the  latter  is  simply  exe- 
getical  of  the  former. 

(14)  I  knoiv,  and  am  persuaded  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  thai 
there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself;  but  to  him  that  esteemeth 
any  thing  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean.  '  The  dis- 
tinction between  clean  and  unclean  meats  is  no  longer  valid. 
So  far  the  Gentile  converts  are  right.  But  they  should  re- 
member that  those  who  consider  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament 
on  this  subject  as  still  binding,  cannot,  with  a  good  conscience, 
disregard  it.  The  strong  should  not,  therefore,  do  any  thing 
which  would  be  likely  to  lead  such  persons  to  violate  their  own 
sense  of  duty.'  /  knoiv  and  am  persuaded  by  (in)  the  Lord 
Jesus,  i.  e.  this  knowledge  and  persuasion  I  owe  to  the  Lord 
Jesus;  it  is  not  an  opinion  founded  on  my  own  reasonings,  but 
a  knowledge  resulting  from  divine  revelation.  That  there  is 
nothing  unclean  of  itself  The  word  (xolvog)  rendered  un- 
clean, has  this  sense  only  in  Hellenistic  Greek.  It  means 
common,  and  as  opposed  to  (ayiog)  holy  (i.  e.  separated  for  somo 

()9 


546  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

special  or  sacred  use),  it  signifies  impure;  see  Acts  10:  14,  25. 

Mark  7:  2,  &c.     But  to  him  that  esteemeth  any  thing  to  be 

unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean,  i.  e.  though  not  unclean  in  itself, 

it  ought  not  to  be  used  by  those  who  regard  its  use  as  unlawful. 

The  simple  principle  here  taught  is,  that  it  is  wrong  for  any  man 
i  to  violate  his  own  sense  of  duty.  This  being  the  case,  those 
I  Jewish  converts  who  believed  the  distinction  between  clean 
I  and  unclean  meats  to  be  still  in  force,  would  commit  sin  in 

disregarding  it;  and,  therefore,  should  not  be  induced  to  act 

contrary  to  their  consciences. 

(15)  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat,  now 

ivalkest  thou  not  charilubly.  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat, 

for  whom  Christ  died.     That  is,  though  the  thing  is  right  in 
itself,  yet  if  indulgence  in  it   be  injurious  to  our  Christian 

brethren,  that  indulgence  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love. 
This  is  the  first  consideration  which  the  apostle  urges  to  enforce 
the  exhortation  not  to  put  a  stumbling-block  in  our  brother's 
way.  The  word  (XuTsFTai)  is  grieved  may  mean  is  injured. 
Either  sense  suits  the  context,  '  If  thy  brother,  emboldened  by 
■  -thy  example,  is  led  to  do  what  he  thinks  wrong,  and  is  thus 
rendered  miserable,  &c.'  Or,  '  If  thy  brother,  by  thy  example, 
is  injured  (by  being  led  into  sin),  thou  walkest  uncharitably.' 
This  interpretation  is  perhaps  better  suited  to  the  latter  clause 
of  the  verse.  Destroy  not  {ii^y\  a.'KoXkvs).  These  words  have 
been  variously  explained.  The  meaning  may  be,  '  Do  not  do 
any  thing  which  has  a  tendency  to  lead  him  to  destruction.' 
So  De  Brais,  Bengel,  Tholuck,  Stuart  and  many  others.  Or, 
*  Do  not  injure  him,  or  render  him  miserable.'  So  Eisner, 
Koppe,  Flatt,  Wahl  and  others.  There  is  no  material  diflference 
between  these  two  interpretations.  The  former  is  more  con- 
sistent with  the  common  meaning  of  the  original  word,  but  the 
latter  is  better  suited  to  the  context;  as  this  clause  answers  to 
the  first  member  of  the  verse.  'If  thy  brother  be  aggrieved, 
thou  doest  wrong;  do  not  grieve  or  injure  him.'  For  whom 
Christ  died.  This  is  most  effectively  added.  '  If  Christ  so 
loved  him  as  to  die  for  him,  how  base  in  you  not  to  submit  to 
the  smallest  self-denial  for  his  welfare.' 

(16)  Let  not  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of,  i.  e.  '  Do  not  so 
use  your  liberty,  which  is  good  and  valuable,  as  to  make  it  tlie 
occasion  of  evil,  and  so  liable  to  censure.'     Thus  Calvin  and 


f( 


ROMANS  14:  1— 23.  547 

inost  other  commentators.  This  interpretation  is  better  suited 
to  the  context  than  that  which  makes  the  good  here  intended, 
to  be  the  Christian  rehgion  generally;  'Let  not  religion  be  re- 
proached on  account  of  dissension  on  such  minor  points.'  The 
general  idea,  however,  is  the  same.  '  Do  not  subject  the  truth 
to  unmerited  obloquy.' 

(17)   For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink; 
bnt  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  is  a  new  reason  for  forbearance;  no  principle  of  duty 
is  to  be  sacrificed,  nothing  essential  to  religion  is  to  be  disre- 
garded, for  religion  does  not  consist  in  external  observances, 
but  in  the  inward  graces  of  the  Spirit.     It  has  already  been 
remarked   (v.  4),  that  with  all  his  desire  of  peace,  no  one 
was  more  firm  and  unyielding  when  any  dereliction  of  Christian 
principle  was  required  of  him,  than  the   apostle.      But  the 
case  under  consideration  is  very  different.     There  is  no  sin 
in  abstaining  from  certain  meats,  and,  therefore,  if  the  good 
of  others  require  this  abstinence,  we  are  bound  to  exercise  it. 
The  phrase  kingdom  of  God  almost  uniformly  signifies  the 
kingdo7?i  of  the  Messiah,  under  some  one  of  its  aspects,  as 
consisting  of  all  professing  Christians,  of  all  his  own  people, 
of  glorified  believers,  or  as  existing  in  the  heart.     "  The  king- 
dom of  God  is  within  you;"  see  also  1  Cor.  4:  20.     This  last 
sense  best  suits  this  passage, '  Religion  does  not  consist  in  the  f 
external  observance,  but  in  the  graces  of  the  Spirit.'    Righteous-  1 
ness,  peace  and  joy  in  the   Holy  Ghost.     The  last  words, 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  pertain  to  the  whole  clause.     Religion 
consists  in  that  righteousness,  peace  and  joy,  of  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  author.     The  word  righteousness  is  to  be  taken 
in  its  common  sense,  moral  excellence,  goodness;  peace,  not 
exclusively  concord  with  brethren,  but  that  inward  peace  of 
conscience,  and  peace  with  God,  which  is  the  attendant  on  re- 
conciliation (Rom.  5:  1);  and  joy  resulting  from  a  sense  of  the 
divine  favour  and  the  anticipation  of  future  blessedness. 

(18)  For  he,  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,  is  ac- 
ceptable to  God  and  approved  of  men.  This  verse  is  a  con- 
firmation of  the  preceding.  These  spiritual  graces  constitute 
the  essential  part  of  religion;  for  he  that  experiences  and  exer- 
cises these  virtues,  is  regarded  by  God  as  a  true  Cliristian,  and 
must  commend  himself  as  such  to  the  consciences  of  his  fellow 


548  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

men.  Where  these  things,  therefore,  are  found,  difference  of 
opinion  or  practice  in  reference  to  unessential  points  should 
not  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  intercourse. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  exercise  of  the  virtues  here 
spoken  of,  is  represented  by  the  apostle  as  a  service  rendered 
to  Christ;  "he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,  &c.,"  which 
implies  that  Christ  has  authority  over  the  heart  and  conscience. 

(19)  Let  us,  therefore,  foi/ow  after  the  things  luhich  make 
for  peace,  and  things  whereby  one  may  edify  another. 
That  is,  let  us  earnestly  endeavour  to  promote  peace  and  mutual 
edification.  The  things  which  m,ake  for  peace  is  equivalent 
to  peace  itself  (rd  rvjg  8j^y|V7ig=S(^>)V7]v);  and  things  wherewith  one 
may  edify  another  is  mutual  edification  (tc).  ti]z  o(xo(5ofji.^g=oixo- 
5o/ji'>jv).  This  verse  is  not  an  inference  from  the  immediately 
preceding,  as  though  the  meaning  were,  '  Since  peace  is  so 
acceptable  to  God,  therefore  let  us  cultivate  it;'  but  rather  from 
the  whole  passage.  '  Since  Christian  love,  the  example  of 
Christ,  the  comparative  insignificance  of  the  matters  in  dispute, 
the  honour  of  the  truth,  the  nature  of  real  religion,  all  conspire 
to  urge  us  to  mutual  forbearance,  let  us  endeavour  to  promote 
peace  and  mutual  edification.'* 

(20)  For  meat  destroy  not  the  work  of  God.  This  clause 
is,  by  De  Brais  and  many  other  commentators,  considered  as  a 
repetition  of  v.  15.  "  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
whom  Christ  died."  The  work  of  God  then  means  a  Chris- 
tian brother;  see  Eph.  2:  10.  Others  much  more  naturally 
refer  the  passage  to  the  immediately  preceding  verses,  in  which 
the  nature  of  true  religion  is  exhibited.  The  icork  of  God,  in 
that  case,  is  piety,  and  the  exhortation  is, '  Do  not,  for  the  sake 
of  indulgence  in  certain  kinds  of  food,  injure  the  cause  of  true 
religion,  i.  e.  pull  not  down  what  God  is  building  up.'  The 
figurative  expression  used  by  the  apostle  {[].r\  xarukui,  pull  not 

*  Quantum  potest  revocat  nos  a  nuda  ciborum  consideratione  ad  ilia  majora, 
quae  primum  locum  in  omnibus  actionibus  nostris  habere,  adcoque  illis  j)raeesse 
debent.  Edendum  est  cnim,  ut  vivamus  ;  vivenduin,  ut  scrviamus  Domino.  lUe 
autem  Domino  scrvit,  qui  bcncvolenlia  ct  comitate  proximum  aedificat.  His  enim 
duobus,  Concordia  et  aedificationc  contincnlur  fere  omnia  caritatis  ofTicia.  Id  ne 
parvi  fiat,  repetit  quam  posuerat  scntcntiam,  cibum  corruptibilem  rem  indignam 
esse,  cujus  causa  dissipelur  Domini  acdificium.  llbicunque  vol  scintilla  est  pieta- 
tis,  illic  opus  Dei  ccrncrc  est ;  quod  demoliuntur  qui  sua  importunitate  pcrturbant 
infirmam  adhuc  conscientiam. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  54  fl 

down),  shows  that  the  reference  is  to  the  precedino;  verse;  com- 
pare Gal  2:  18. 

*,^ll  things  indeed  Arc  jnu-e;  but  it  is  evi/ for  that  man  who 
eateth  ivith  offence.  The  ground  on  which  forbearance  is  urged, 
is  not  that  the  things  in  question  are  in  themselves  evil,  but 
solely  that  the  use  of  them  is  injurious  to  others.  '  All  articles 
of  food  are  in  themselves  innocent,  but  it  is  wrong  in  any  man 
so  to  use  them  as  to  give  offence,  i.  e.  as  to  cause  others  to 
stumble.'  With  offence  ((5ia  ^^otfxo'fjifjLKTog),  i.  e.  offensively,  so 
as  to  give  offence.  The  same  sentiment  occurs  in  1  Cor.  8:  9, 
*'But  take  heed,  lest  by  any  means  this  liberty  become  a  stum- 
bling-block to  them  that  are  weak." 

(21)  It  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor 
any  thing  ivherchy  thy  brother  stinnb/c/h,  or  is  offended,  or 
is  made  iveak.  That  is,  abstaining  from  flesh,  wine,  or  any 
thing  else  which  is  injurious  to  our  brethren,  is  right,  i.  e. 
morally  obligatory;  (xaXov,  id  quod  rectum  ef  prohuiii  est).  The 
words  stumbleth,  offended,  made  iveak,  do  not,  in  this  con- 
nexion, differ  much  from  each  other.  Calvin  supposes  they 
differ  in  force,  the  first  being  stronger  than  the  second,  and  the 
second  than  the  third.  The  sense  tlicn  is,  '  We  should  abstain 
from  every  thing  whereby  our  brother  is  cast  down,  or  even 
offended,  or  in  the  slightest  degree  injui-ed.'  This,  however, 
is  urging  the  terms  beyond  their  natural  import.  It  is  very 
common  with  the  apostle  to  use  several  nearly  synonymous 
words  for  the  sake  of  expressing  one  idea  strongly.  Tlie  last 
two  words  (^  tfxav(5aXi^STai  -q  affSsvsr)  are  indeed  omitted  in  some 
few  manuscripts  and  versions,  but  in  too  few  seriously  to  im- 
pair their  authority.  Mill  is  almost  the  only  editor  of  standing 
who  rejects  them. 

There  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  middle  clause  of  this  verse  wliicli 
has  been  variously  sujiplied.  '  Nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  (ch-ink) 
any  thing;'  others,  '  not  to  (do)  any  thing  whereby,  &.c.'  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  method  of  supplying  the  ellipsis,  the  mean- 
ing is,  '  We  should  not  drink  wine,  nor  any  other  intoxicating 
drink,  when  our  doing  so  is  injurious  to  others.'  But  the  lat- 
ter method  is  more  natural  and  forcible,  and  includes  the  other, 
'  We  should  do  nothing  which  injures  others.'  The  ground  on 
which  some  of  the  early  Christians  thouglit  it  incumbent  on 
them  to  abstain  from  wine,  was  not  any  general  ascetic  prui- 


550  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

ciplc,  but  because  they  feared  they  might  be  led  to  use  wine 
which  had  been  offered  to  the  gods;  to  which  they  had  the  same 
objection  as  to  meat  which  had  been  presented  in  sacrifice.* 

(22)  Hast  thou  faith!  have  it  thyself  before  God.    Happy 
is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  ivhich  he  alloweth. 
Paul  presents  in  this  verse,  more  distinctly  than  he  had  before 
done,  the  idea  that  he  required  no  concession  of  principle  or 
renunciation  of  truth.      Pie  did  not  wish  them  to  believe  a 
thing  to  be  sinful  which  was  not  sinful,  or  to  trammel  their  own 
consciences  with  the  scruples  of  their  weaker  brethren.     He 
simply  required  them  to  use  their  liberty  in  a  considerate  and 
charitable  manner.     He,  therefore,  here  says, '  Hast  thou  faith  .'' 
(i.  e.  a  firm  persuasion  of  the  lawfulness  of  all  kinds  of  meat) 
it  is  well,  do  not  renounce  it,  but  retain  it  and  use  it  piously  as 
in  the  sight  of  God.'     Instead  of  reading  the  first  clause  inter- 
I  rogatively.  Hast  thou  faith?  it  is  more  commonly,  and  perhaps 
more  properly  read.  Thou  hast  faith.     It  is  then  presented  in 
the  form  of  an  objection,  which  a  Gentile  convert  might  be 
disposed  to  make  to  the  direction  of  the  apostle  to  accommo- 
date his  conduct  to  the  scruples  of  others.     '  Thou  hast  faith: 
thou  may  est  say;  well  have  it,  I  do  not  call  upon  thee  to  re- 
nounce it.'     Hy  faith  here  seems  clearly  to  be  understood  the 
faith  of  which  Paul  had  been  speaking  in  the  context;  a  faith 
which  some  Christians  had,  and  others  had  not,  viz.  a  firm 
belief  "  that  there   is  nothing   (no    meat)   unclean  of  itself" 
Have  it  to  thyself  (xaTo.  asauTov  ^x^),  keep  it  to  yourself     There 
are  two  ideas  included  in  this  phrase.     The  first  is,  keep  it  pri- 
vately, i.  e.  do  not  parade  it,  or  make  it  a  point  to  show  that 
you  are  above  the  weak  scruples  of  your  brethren;   and  the 
second  is,  that  this  faith  or  firm  conviction  is  not  to  be  re- 
nounced, but  retained,  for  it  is  founded  on  the  truth.     Before 
God,  i.  e.  in  the  sight  of  God.     It  is  to  be  cherished  in  our 
hearts,  and  used  in  a  manner  acceptable  to  God.     Being  right 
in  itself,  it  is  to  be  piously,  and  not  ostentatiously  or  injuriously 
paraded  and  employed. 

*  ..lugnstinus  de  moribus  Manichaeorum,  11.  14,  Eo  tempore,  quo  haec  scribe- 
bat  a{)ostolus,  multa  imnioliticia  caro  in  maceilo  vendebattir.  Et  quia  vino  etiani 
libabatur  Diis  gentilium,  multi  Iralres  infirniiores,  qui  etiam  rebus  his  venalibus 
utebantur,  penitus  a  camil)us  se  et  vino  rohibere  maluerunt,  quam  vel  nescientes 
iiiicidcre  in  earn,  quam  putabant,  cuui  idolis  coniinunicatioiiem. — WjvTstein. 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  551 

Blessed  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  which 
he  alloweth.  That  is,  blessed  is  the  man  that  has  a  good  con- 
science; who  does  not  allow  himself  to  do  what  he  secretly 
condemns.  The  faith,  therefore,  of  which  the  apostle  had 
spoken,  is  a  great  blessing.  It  is  a  source  of  great  happiness 
to  be  sure  that  what  we  do  is  right,  and,  therefore,  the  firm 
conviction  to  which  some  Christians  had  attained,  was  not  to  be 
undervalued  or  renounced.  Compare  ch.  1 :  28.  1  Cor.  Ifi :  3,  for 
a  similar  use  of  the  word  ((Joxi/xa^w)  here  employed.  This  inter- 
pretation seems  better  suited  to  the  context  and  to  tlie  force  of 
the  words  than  another  which  is  also  frequently  given,  '  Bless- 
ed is  the  man  who  docs  not  condemn  himself,  i.  e.  give  occasion 
to  others  to  censure  him  for  the  use  which  he  makes  of  his 
liberty.'  This  gives  indeed  a  good  sense,  but  it  does  not  ad- 
here so  closely  to  the  meaning  of  the  text,  nor  does  it  so  well 
agree  with  what  follows. 

(23)  But  he  that  doiihteth  is  damned  if  he  eat,  because  he 
eateth  not  of  faith;  for  lohatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  si/i. 
That  is,  however  sure  a  man  may  be  that  what  he  does  is  right, 
he  cannot  expect  others  to  act  on  his  faith.  If  a  man  thinks  a 
thing  to  be  wrong,  to  him  it  is  wrong.  He  therefore  who  is 
uncertain  whether  God  has  commanded  him  to  abstain  from 
certain  meats,  and  who  notwithstanding  indulges  in  them,  evi- 
dently sins;  he  brings  himself  under  condemnation.  Because 
whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin;  i.  e.  whatever  we  do  which  we 
are  not  sure  is  right,  is  wrong.  The  sentiment  of  this  verse 
therefore  is  nearly  the  same  as  of  v.  14.  "  To  him  that  estecm- 
eth  any  thing  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean."  There  is 
evidently  a  sinful  disregard  of  the  divine  authority  on  the  part 
of  a  man  who  does  any  thing  which  he  supposes  God  has  for- 
bidden, or  which  he  is  not  certain  he  has  allowed.*  This  pas- 
sage has  an  obvious  bearing  on  the  design  of  the  apostle. 
He  wished  to  convince  the  stronger  Christians  that  it  was 
unreasonable  in  them  to  expect  their  weaker  brethren  to  act 
according  to  their  faith;  and  that  it  was  sinful  in  them  so  to  use 

*  The  principle  of  niorals;  contiiined  in  this  verse  is  so  obvious  thnt  it  occurs  fre- 
quently in  the  writiiiffs  of  ancient  philosophers.  Cicero  de  Ofliciis,  iih.  1,  c.  9, 
Quodcirca  bene  jjraeripiunt,  qui  vctant  quidquain  apere,  quod  dubites.  aequum  sit, 
an  iniquum.  Acquitas  ciiim  lucct  ipsa  per  sc :  dubitatio  cogitalioiiem  signiljcat 
injuriac. 


553  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

their  liberty  as  to  induce  these  scrupulous  Christians  to  violate 
their  own  consciences. 


»c-     '^ 


Doctrines. 

1.  The  fellowship  of  the  saints  is  not  to  be  broken  for  unes- 
sential matters;  in  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to  make  any- 
thing a  term  of  Christian  communion  which  is  not  inconsis- 
tent with  piety.  Paul  evidently  argues  on  the  principle  that  if 
a  man  is  a  true  Christian  he  should  be  recognised  and  treated  as 
such.  If  God  has  recieved  him,  we  should  receive  him,  vs.  1 — 12. 

2.  The  true  criterion  of  a  Christian  character  is  found  in  the 
governing  purpose  of  the  life.  He  that  lives  unto  the  Lord, 
i.  e.  he  who  makes  the  will  of  God  the  rule  of  his  conduct,  and 
the  glory  of  God  his  constant  object,  is  a  true  Christian,  although 
from  weakness  or  ignorance  he  may  sometimes  mistake  the  rule 
of  duty,  and  consider  certain  things  obligatory  which  God  has 
never  commanded,  vs.  6 — 8. 

*  The  three  verses  which,  in  the  common  text,  occur  at  the  close  of  chapter  16, 
are  found  at  the  close  of  this  chapter  in  the  MSS.  A.  and  in  all  those  written  in 
small  letters  on  Wetstcin's  catalogue,  from  1  to  55,  except  13,  15,  16,  25,  27,  28, 
50,  53,  (two  of  these,  27,  53,  do  not  contain  this  epistle,  and  25,  28  are  here  de- 
fective). To  these  are  to  be  added  many  others  examined  by  later  editors,  making 
one  hundred  mad  seven  MSS.  in  which  the  passage  occurs  at  the  close  of  this  chap- 
ter. Of  the  versions,  only  the  later  Syriac,  Sclavonic  ;md  Arabic  assign  it  this 
position  ;  with  which,  however,  most  of  the  Greek  fathers  coincide.  Beza  (in  his 
1st  and  2d  editions),  Grotius,  Mill,  Hammond,  Wetstcin,  Griesbach,  consider  the 
passage  to  belong  to  this  chapter. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  MSS.  C.  D.  E.  and  several  of  the  codd.  ininusc.  the  early 
Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  the  Latin  fathers,  place  the  con- 
tested verses  at  the  close  of  chapter  16.  This  location  is  adopted  in  the  Complu- 
tensian  edition,  by  Erasmus,  Stephens,  Beza  (in  his  3d,  4th  and  5th  editions), 
Bengel,  Koppc,  Knapp,  Lackmann  and  others. 

These  verses  are  left  out  in  both  places  in  the  MSS.  F.  G.  57,  67,  68,  69,  70. 
And  are  found  in  both  places  in  A.  17,  and  in  the  Armenian  version.  The  weight 
due  to  the  early  versions,  in  deciding  such  a  question,  is  obviously  very  great ;  and 
as  these  versions  all  coincide  with  the  received  text  and  some  of  the  oldest  MSS. 
in  placing  the  passage  at  the  close  of  the  epistle,  that  is  most  probably  its  proper 
place.  The  doxology,  which  those  verses  contain,  so  evidently  breaks  the  intimate 
connexion  between  the  close  of  the  14th  chapter  and  the  beginning  of  the  15th, 
that  it  is  only  by  assuming  with  Semlcr  that  the  epistle  properly  terminates  here, 
or  with  Tholuck  and  others  that  Paul,  after  having  closed  with  a  doxology,  begins 
anew  on  the  same  topic,  that  the  presence  of  the  passage  in  this  place  can  be  ac- 
counted for.  But  both  these  assumptions  arc^  unauthorized,  and  that  of  Semler 
dcslilulo  of  the  least  jilausibilily. — Sec  Koi'ri;'s  E.\.cursus  II.  to  tliis  epistle. 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  553 

3.  Jesus  Christ  must  l)e  truly  God,  1.  Because  he  is  the  Lortl, 
according  to  whose  will  and  fur  whose  glory  we  arc  to  live,  vs. 
6 — 8.  2.  Because  he  exercises  an  universal  dominion  over  the 
living  and  the  dead,  v.  9.  3.  Because  he  is  the  final  judge  of 
all  men,  v.  10.  4.  Because  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  are  spoken  of  Jehovah,  are  by  the  apostle  applied  to 
Christ,  V.  1 1.  5.  Because,  throughout  this  passage,  Paul  speaks 
of  God  and  Christ  indiscriminately,  in  a  manner  which  shows 
that  he  regarded  Christ  as  God.  To  live  unto  Christ  is  to  live 
unto  God;  to  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  to 
give  an  account  unto  God;  to  submit  to  Christ  is  to  bow  the 
knee  to  Jehovah. 

4.  The  gospel  does  not  make  religion  to  consist  in  external 
observances.  "Meat  commendcth  us  not  to  God;  for  neither 
if  we  eat  are  we  the  better;  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the 
worse,"  vs.  6,  7. 

5.  Though  a  thing  may  be  lawful,  it  is  not  always  expedient. 
The  use  of  the  liberty  which  every  Christian  enjoys  under  the 
gospel,  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  love;  hence  it  is  often 
morally  wrong  to  do  what,  in  itself  considered,  may  be  inno- 
cent, vs.  15,  20,  21. 

6.  It  is  a  great  error  in  morals,  and  a  great  practical  evil,  to 
make  that  sinful  which  is  in  fact  innocent.  Christian  love 
never  requires  this  or  any  other  sacrifice  of  truth.  Paul  would 
not  consent,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  offence,  that  eating  all 
kinds  of  food,  even  what  had  been  offered  to  idols,  or  disre- 
garding sacred  festivals  of  human  appointment,  should  be  made 
a  sin;  he  strenuously  and  openly  maintained  the  reverse.  He 
represents  those  who  thought  differently  as  weak  in  faith,  as 
being  under  an  error  from  which  more  knowledge  and  more 
piety  would  free  them.  Concession  to  their  weakness  he  en- 
joins on  a  principle  perfectly  consistent  with  the  assertion  of 
the  truth,  and  with  the  preservation  of  Christian  liberty, 
vs.  13—23. 

7.  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.  It  is  wrong  to  do  any 
thing  which  we  think  to  be  wrong.  The  converse  of  this  propo- 
sition, however,  is  not  true.  It  is  not  always  right  to  do  what  we 
think  to  be  right.  Paul,  before  his  conversion,  thought  it  right 
to  persecute  Christians;  the  Jews  thought  they  did  God  service 
when  they  cast  the  disciples  of  the  Saviour  out  of  the  synagogue. 

70 


554  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

The  cases,  therefore,  are  not  parallel.  When  we  do  what  we 
think  God  has  forbidden,  we  are  evidently  guilty  of  diso- 
bedience or  contempt  of  the  divine  authority.  But  when  we 
do  what  we  think  he  has  required,  we  may  act  under  a  culpable 
mistake;  or,  although  we  may  have  the  judgment  that  the  act 
in  itself  is  right,  our  motives  for  doing  it  may  be  very  wicked. 
The  state  of  mind  under  which  Paul  and  other  Jews  persecuted 
the  early  Christians  was  evil,  though  the  persecution  itself 
they  regarded  as  a  duty.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man  should 
have  right  motives  for  doing  a  wrong  action;  for  the  very  mis- 
take as  to  what  is  right  vitiates  the  motives.  The  mistake 
implies  a  wrong  state  of  mind;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
misapprehension  of  truth  produces  a  wrong  state  of  mind. 
There  may,  therefore,  be  a  very  sinful  zeal  for  God  and  religion 
(see  Rom.  10:  2);  and  no  man  will  be  able  to  plead  at  the  bar 
of  judgment  his  good  intention  as  an  excuse  for  evil  conduct, 
V.  23. 

Remarks. 

1.  Christians  should  not  allow  any  thing  to  alienate  them 
from  their  brethren,  who  afford  credible  evidence  that  they  are 
the  servants  of  God.  Owing  to  ignorance,  early  prejudice, 
weakness  of  faith,  and  other  causes,  there  may  and  must  exist 
a  diversity  of  opinion  and  practice  on  minor  points  of  duty. 
But  this  diversity  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  from 
Christian  fellowship  any  member  of  the  family  of  Christ.  It 
is,  however,  one  thing  to  recognise  a  man  as  a  Christian,  and 
another  to  recognise  him  as  a  suitable  minister  of  a  church, 
organized  on  a  particular  form  of  government  and  system  of 
doctrines,  vs.  1 — 12. 

2.  A  denunciatory  or  censorious  spirit  is  hostile  to  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel.  It  is  an  encroachment  on  the  prerogatives  of 
the  only  Judge  of  the  heart  and  conscience;  it  blinds  the  mind 
to  moral  distinctions,  and  prevents  the  discernment  between 
matters  unessential  and  those  vitally  important;  and  it  leads  us 
to  forget  our  own  accountableness,  and  to  overlook  our  own 
faults  in  our  zeal  to  denounce  those  of  others,  vs.  4 — 10. 

3.  It  is  sinful  to  indulge  contempt  for  those  whom  we  sup- 
pose to  be  our  inferiors,  vs.  3,  10. 

4.  Christians  should  remember  that  living  or  dying  they  are 


ROMANS  14:  1—23.  555 

the  Lord's.  This  imposes  the  obligation  to  observe  liis  will 
and  to  seek  his  glory;  and  it  affords  the  assurance  that  the  Lord 
will  provide  for  all  their  wants.  This  peculiar  propriety  in 
his  own  people  Christ  has  obtained  by  his  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, vs.  8,  9. 

5.  We  should  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free,  and  not  allow  our  consciences  to  be  brought  under 
the  yoke  of  bondage  to  human  opinions.  There  is  a  strong  ten- 
dency in  men  to  treat,  as  matters  of  conscience,  things  which 
God  has  never  enjoined.  Wherever  this  disposition  has  been 
indulged  or  submitted  to,  it  has  resulted  in  bringing  one  class 
of  men  under  the  most  degrading  bondage  to  another;  and  in 
the  still  more  serious  evil  of  leading  them  to  disregard  the  au- 
thority of  God.  Multitudes  who  would  be  shocked  at  the 
thought  of  eating  meat  during  Lent,  commit  the  greatest  moral 
offences  without  the  slightest  compunction.  It  is,  therefore,  of 
great  importance  to  keep  the  conscience  free;  under  no  subjec- 
tion but  to  truth  and  God.  This  is  necessary,  not  only  on 
account  of  its  influence  on  our  own  moral  feelings,  but  also  be- 
cause nothing  but  truth  can  really  do  good.  To  advocate  even 
a  good  cause  with  bad  arguments  does  great  harm,  by  exciting 
unnecessary  opposition;  by  making  good  men,  who  oppose  the 
arguments,  appear  to  oppose  the  cause;  by  introducing  a  false 
standard  of  duty;  by  failing  to  enlist  the  support  of  an  enlight- 
ened conscience,  and  by  the  necessary  forfeiture  of  the  confi- 
dence of  the  intelligent  and  well  informed.  The  cause  of 
benevolence,  therefore,  instead  of  being  promoted,  is  injured 
by  all  exaggerations,  erroneous  statements,  and  false  principles 
on  the  part  of  its  advocates,  vs.  14,  22. 

6.  It  is  obviously  incumbent  on  every  man  to  endeavour  to 
obtain  and  promote  right  views  of  duty,  not  only  for  his  own 
sake  but  for  the  sake  of  others.  It  is  often  necessary  to  assert 
our  Christian  liberty  at  the  expense  of  incurring  censure  and 
offending  even  good  men,  in  order  that  right  principles  of  duty 
may  be  preserved.  Our  Saviour  consented  to  be  regarded  as  a 
sabbath-breaker,  and  even  "  a  wine-bibber  and  friend  of  publi- 
cans and  sinners;"  but  wisdom  was  justified  of  her  children. 
Christ  did  not  in  these  cases  see  fit  to  accommodate  his  conduct 
to  the  rule  of  duty  set  up,  and  conscientiously  regarded  as  correct 
by  those  around  him.     He  saw  that  more  good  \vould  arise  from 


556  ROMANS  14:  1—23. 

a  practical  disregard  of  the  false  opinions  of  the  Jews,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  sabbath  was  to  be  kept,  and  as  to  the 
degree  of  intercourse  which  was  allowed  with  wicked  men, 
than  from  concession  to  their  prejudices.  Enlightened  benevo- 
lence often  requires  a  similar  course  of  conduct,  and  a  similar 
exercise  of  self-denial  on  the  part  of  his  disciples. 

7.  While  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  maintained,  and  right 
principles  of  duty  inculcated,  every  concession  consistent  with 
truth  and  good  morals  should  be  made  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  the  welfare  of  others.  It  is  important,  however,  that  the 
duty  of  making  such  concessions  should  be  placed  on  the  right 
ground,  and  be  urged  in  a  right  spirit,  not  as  a  thing  to  be  de- 
manded, but  as  that  which  the  law  of  love  requires.  In  this  way 
success  is  more  certain  and  more  extensive,  and  the  concomitant 
results  are  all  good.  It  may  at  times  be  a  difficult  practical 
question,  whether  most  good  would  result  from  compliance  with 
the  prejudices  of  others,  or  from  disregarding  them.  Eut  where 
there  is  a  sincere  desire  to  do  right,  and  a  willingness  to  sacrifice 
our  own  inclinations  for  the  good  of  others,  connected  with 
prayer  for  divine  direction,  there  can  be  little  danger  of  serious 
mistake.  Evil  is  much  more  likely  to  arise  from  a  disregard  to 
the  opinions  and  the  welfare  of  our  brethren,  and  from  a  reli- 
ance on  our  own  judgment,  than  from  any  course  requiring  self- 
denial,  vs.  13,  15,  20,  21. 

8.  Conscience,  or  a  sense  of  duty,  is  not  the  only,  and  perhaps 
not  the  most  important  principle  to  be  appealed  to  in  support 
of  benevolent  enterprises.  It  comes  in  aid,  and  gives  its  sanc- 
tion to  all  other  right  motives,  but  we  find  the  sacred  writers 
appealing  most  frequently  to  the  benevolent  and  pious  feelings; 
to  the  example  of  Christ;  to  a  sense  of  our  obligations  to  him; 
to  the  mutual  relation  of  Christians  and  their  common  connexion 
with  the  Redeemer,  &c.  as  motives  to  self-denial  and  devoted- 
ness,  vs.  15,  21. 

9.  As  the  religion  of  the  gospel  consists  in  the  inward  graces 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  who  have  these  graces  should  be  recog- 
nised as  genuine  Christians;  being  acceptable  to  God,  they 
should  be  loved  and  cherished  by  his  people,  notwithstanding 
their  weakness  or  errors,  vs.  17,  18. 

10.  The  peace  and  edification  of  the  ciiurch  are  to  be  sought 
at  all  sacrifices  except  those  of  truth  and  duty;  and  the  work  of 


ROMANS  15:  1—13.  557 

God  is  not  to  l)c  dcstroj^cd  or  injured  for  the  sake  of  any  per- 
sonal or  party  interests,  vs.  19,  20. 

11.  An  cnliji^htened  conscience  is  a  great  blessina;;  it  secures 
the  liberty  of  the  soul  from  bondage  to  tlie  opinions  of  men,  and 
from  the  self-inflicted  pains  of  a  scrupulous  and  morbid  state  of 
the  moral  feelings;  and  it  promotes  the  right  exercise  of  all  the 
virtuous  affections  and  the  right  discharge  of  all  relative,  duties, 
V.  22. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

Conients. 
This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  In  the  former,  vs.  1 — 1 :!, 
the  apostle  enforces  the  duty  urged  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
by  considerations  derived  principally  from  the  example  of 
Christ.  In  the  latter  part,  vs.  14 — 33,  we  have  the  conclusion 
of  the  whole  discussion,  in  wliich  he  speaks  of  his  confidence  in 
the  Roman  Christians,  of  his  motives  for  writing  to  them,  of  his 
apostolical  office  and  labours,  and  of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome 
after  fulfilling  his  ministrv  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem. 


CHAP.  15:  1—13. 

The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  is  a  conclusion  from  the  wliolo 
of  the  preceding.  On  tlie  grounds  there  presented,  Paul  rci)eats 
the  command  that  the  strong  should  bear  with  the  infirmities 
of  the  weak,  and  that  instead  of  selfishly  regarding  their  own 
interests  merely,  they  should  endeavour  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  their  brethren,  vs.  1,  2.  This  duty  he  enforces  by  the  con- 
duct of  Christ,  who  has  set  us  an  example  of  perfect  disinterest- 
edness, as  what  he  suffered  was  not  for  himself,  v.  3.  This  and 
similar  facts  and  sentiments  recorded  in  the  scrijjturc  are 
intended  for  our  admonition,  and  should  be  applied  for  that 
purpose,  V.  4.  The  apostle  prays  that  God  would  bestow  on 
them  that  harmony  and  unanimity  which  he  had  urged  them  to 
cultivate,  vs.  5,  6.     He  repeats  the  exhortation  tliat  they  should 


558  ROMANS  15:  1—13. 

receive  one  another,  even  as  Christ  had  received  them,  v.  7. 
He  shows  how  Christ  had  received  them,  and  united  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  one  body,  vs.  8 — 13. 

Commeritary. 

(1)  TVe  then  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities 
of  the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.  The  separation  of 
this  passage  from  the  preceding  chapter  is  obviously  unhappy,  as 
there  is  no  change  in  the  subject.  '  As  the  points  of  difference 
are  not  essential,  as  the  law  of  love,  the  example  of  Christ,  and 
the  honour  of  religion  require  concession,  we  that  are  fully 
persuaded  of  the  indifference  of  those  things  about  which  our 
weaker  brethren  are  so  scrupulous,  ought  to  accommodate  our- 
selves to  their  opinions,  and  not  act  with  a  view  to  our  own  gra- 
tification merely.'  We  that  are  strong  (^uvaroi),  strong  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  discourse,  i.  e.  faith,  especially  faith 
in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  lawfulness  of  all  kinds  of  food, 
and  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Ought  to  bear,  i.  e. 
ought  to  tolerate  (^arfra^siv).  The  infirmities,  that  is,  the 
prejudices,  errors  and  faults  which  arise  from  weakness  of  faith. 
Compare  1  Cor.  9:  20 — 22,  where  the  apostle  illustrates  this 
command  by  stating  how  he  himself  acted  in  relation  to  this 
subject.  Jind  not  to  please  ourselves;  we  are  not  to  do  every 
thing  which  we  may  have  a  right  to  do,  and  make  our  own 
gratification  the  rule  by  which  we  exercise  our  Christian  liberty. 

(2)  Let  each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbour,  for  his  good 
for  edification.  The  principle,  which  is  stated  negatively  at 
the  close  of  the  preceding  verse,  is  here  stated  afhrmatively. 
We  are  not  to  please  ourselves,  but  others;  the  law  of  love  is  to 
regulate  our  conduct;  we  are  not  simply  to  ask  what  is  right  in 
itself,  or  what  is  agreeable,  but  what  is  benevolent  and  pleasing 
to  our  brethren.  The  object  which  we  should  have  in  view  in 
accommodating  ourselves  to  others,  however,  is  their  good. 
For  good  to  edification  most  probably  means  with  a  view  to 
his  good  so  that  he  may  be  edified.  The  latter  words  to 
edification,  arc,  therefore,  explanatory  of  the  former;  the  good 
we  should  contemplate  is  their  religious  improvement;  which 
is  the  sense  in  which  Paul  frequently  uses  the  word  (o/xo^ojui^) 
edification;  ch.  14:  19.  2  Cor.  10:  S.  Eph.  4:  12,  29.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  a  weak  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  others,  lo 


ROMANS  15:  1—13.  559 

which  Paul  exhorts  us,  but  to  the  exercise  of  an  enlightened 
benevolence;  to  such  compliances  as  have  the  design  and  ten- 
dency to  promote  the  spiritual  wclfiirc  of  our  neiglibour. 

(3)  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  himself,  but  as  it  is 
written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  fell  on 
me.  '  For  even  Christ,  so  infinitely  exalted  above  all  Christians, 
was  perfectly  disinterested  and  condescending.'  The  example  of 
Christ  is  constantly  held  up  not  merely  as  a  model  but  a  motive. 
The  disinterestedness  of  Christ  is  here  illustrated  by  a  reference 
to  the  fact  that  he  suffered  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  glory  of 
God.  The  sorrow  which  he  felt  was  not  on  account  of  liis  own 
privations  and  injuries,  but  zeal  for  God's  service  consumed  him, 
and  it  was  the  dishonour  which  was  cast  on  God  that  broke  his 
heart.  The  simple  point  to  be  illustrated  is  the  disinterestedness 
of  Christ,  the  fact  that  he  did  not  please  himself.  And  this  is 
most  affectingly  done  by  saying,  in  the  language  of  the  Psahnist 
(Ps.  69:  10),  "The  zeal  of  thy  house  hath  eaten  me  uj);  and 
the  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  are  fallen  upon 
me;"  that  is,  such  was  my  zeal  for  thee,  that  the  reproaches 
cast  on  thee  I  felt  as  if  directed  against  myself.  This  Psalm  is 
so  frequently  quoted  and  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  it  must  be  considered  as  directly  prophetical.  Com- 
pare John  2:  17.  15:  25.  19:  28.  Acts  1:  20.* 

(4)  For  whatsoever  things  iverc  written  aforetime  were 
written  for  our  learning,  that  ive,  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  scriptures  might  have  hope.  The  object  of 
this  verse  is  not  so  much  to  show  the  propriety  of  applying  the 
passage  quoted  from  the  Psalms  to  Christ,  as  to  show  that  the 
facts  recorded  in  the  scriptures  are  designed  for  our  instruction. 
The  character  of  Christ  is  there  portrayed  that  wc  may  follow 
his  example  and  imbibe  his  spirit.  The  words  through  pa- 
tience  and    consolation    of   the    scriptures   may    be    taken 

*  Quod  si  regnet  in  nobis  Christus,  ut  in  ficiclibus  suis  rcgnarc  cum  nrccsse 
est,  hie  quoque  sensus  in  animis  nostris  vigebit,  ut  quiccjuid  derog-at  Dei  gloriac 
non  aliter  nos  excruciet,  quam  si  in  nobis  resident  Eiuit  nunc,  quibus  sunima 
votorum  est,  maximos  honores  apud  eos  adipisci  qui  probris  omnibus  Dei  noniea 
afficiunt,  Christum  pedibus  conculcant,  evangclium  ipsius  et  contunieliose  lacerant, 
et  gladio  flammaque  persequuntur.  Non  est  sane  tutum  ab  iis  taiit.ipere  hoiiorari, 
a  quibus  non  modo  contcmnitur  Christus,  sed  contunieliose  etiaiu  tractatur.— 
(Jalvin. 


5G0  ROMANS  15:  1—13. 

together,  and  mean,  '  through  that  patience  and  consolation 
which  the  scriptures  produce;'  or  the  words  through  patience 
may  be  disconnected  from  the  word  scriptures,  and  the  sense 
be,  '  that  we  through  patience,  and  through  the  consolation  of 
the  scriptures,  &c.'  The  former  method  is  the  most  commonly- 
adopted,  and  is  the  most  natural.*  Might  have  hope;  this  may 
mean  that  the  design  of  the  divine  instructions  is  to  prevent  all 
despondency,  to  sustain  us  under  our  present  trials;  or  the 
sense  is  that  they  are  intended  to  secure  the  attainment  of  the 
great  object  of  our  hopes,  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  Either 
interpretation  of  the  word  liope  is  consistent  with  usage  and 
gives  a  good  sense.     The  former  is  more  natural. t 

(5)  Now  the  God  of  patience  and  consolation  grant  you 
to  be  liJee  minded  one  towards  another,  according  to  Jesus 
Christ.  '  May  God,  who  is  the  author  of  patience  and  conso- 
lation, grant,  &c.'  Here  the  graces,  which  in  the  preceding 
verse  are  ascribed  to  the  scriptures,  are  attributed  to  God  as 
their  author,  because  he  produces  them  by  his  Spirit  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  truth.  Paul  prays  that  God  would 
grant  them  that  concord  and  unanimity  which  he  had  so  strongly 
exhorted  them  to  cherish.  The  expression  (to  aJro  cp^ovsTv)  to  be 
like  minded  does  not  here  refer  to  unanimity  of  opinion,  but 
to  harmony  of  feeling;  see  ch.  8:  5.  12:3.  According  to  Jesus 
Cfirist,  i.  e.  agreeably  to  the  example  and  command  of  Christ; 
in  a  Christian  manner.  It  is,  therefore,  to  a  Christian  union 
that  he  exhorts  them. 

(6)  That  ye  may  ivitJi  one  mind  and  witfi  one  mouth  glo- 
rify God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
harmony  and  fellowship  among  Christians  is  necessary  in  order 
that  they  may  glorify  God  aright.  To  honour  God  eflectually 
and  properly  there  must  be  no  unnecessary  dissensions  among 

*  The  MSS.  A.  C.  1,  29,  30,  34,  36,  38,  39,  11,  43,  47,  read  (5(a  before  r^g 
<Ka^a.xk'/](tiuiC,  which  would  render  the  second  inmle  of  explaining  the  passage 
slated  in  the  text  tlie  more  j)robabIe.  The  Coniplutensian  edition,  Bengel  and 
Lachmann  adopt  this  reading,  though  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is  greatly 
against  it. 

•j-  Pationtia  fidelium  non  est  ilia  durities,  qunin  praecipiiint  philosophi :  sed  ea 
mansuetudo,  qua  nos  lilienter  Deo  subjicinuis,duni  gustus  bonitatis  ejus  patemique 
amoris  dulcia  omnia  nobis  reddit.  Ea  spem  in  nobis  alit  ac  sustinet,  ne  deficiat. — 
Calvin. 


ROMANS  15:  1—13.  5G1 

his  people.*  God,  eveji  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
means  either  that  God  who  is  tlie  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  or, 
the  God  and  Father  of  Christ.  The  latter  is  the  more  correct 
rendering.  This  expression  occurs  frequently  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament; see  2  Cor.  1:3.  11:  31.  Eph.  1:3.  1  Pet.  1:3.  It 
means  that  God  whom  Jesus  Christ  acknowledged  and  served, 
and  who  stood  to  him  in  the  relation  of  a  Father. 

(7)  Therefore  receive  ye  one  (mother,  as  Christ  also  hath 
received  us,\  to  the  glory  of  God.  The  word  (T^o(rXa(ji/5av.-(r^£) 
receive  has  the  same  sense  here  that  it  has  in  ch.  H:  1.  '  Take 
one  another  to  yourselves,  treat  one  another  kindly,  even  as 
Christ  has  kindly  taken  us  to  himself.'  The  words  to  the 
glory  of  God  may  be  connected  with  the  first  or  second  clause, 
or  with  both.  '  Receive  ye  one  another  that  God  may  be  glo- 
rified;' or,  'as  Christ  has  received  us  in  order  that  God  might 
be  glorified;'  or,  if  referred  to  both  clauses,  the  idea  is,  *  as  the 
glory  of  God  was  illustrated  and  promoted  by  Christ's  recep- 
tion of  us,  so  also  will  it  be  exhibited  by  our  kind  treatment 
of  each  other.'  The  first  method  seems  most  consistent  with 
the  context,  as  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  enforce  the  duty 
of  mutual  forbearance  among  Christians,  for  which  he  suggests 
two  motives,  the  kindness  of  Christ  towards  us,  and  the  pro- 
motion of  the  divine  glory.  If  instead  of  "  hath  received  «*'* 
the  true  reading  is  "  hath  received  you,''^  the  sense  and  point  of 
the  passage  is  materially  altered.  .Paul  must  then  be  considered 
as  exhorting  the  Gentile  converts  to  forbearance  towards  their 
Jewish  brethren,  on  the  ground  that  Christ  had  received  them, 
though  aliens,  into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 

(8)  Now  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  teas  a  viinister  of  the 
circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises 

*  Ac  quo  magis  comniendabilpm  reddat  consensionem  in  Christo,  docct  quanto- 
pere  sit  necessaria:  quando  non  verc  a  nobis  gloriticatur  Deus,  nisi  in  ipsius  laudcm 
corda  omnium  consentiant,  et  linguae  ctiam  concinant.  Non  est  ergo  quod  jactet 
quispiam,  se  Deo  gloriam  daturum,  suo  more:  tanli  enim  Deo  est  ser^•orum  suorum 
unitas,  ut  inter  dissidia  et  contentiones  gloriam  suam  personate  nolit.  Haec  una 
cogitatio  satis  cohibere  debebat  insanam  contendendi  rixandique  lasci\iam  quae 
multorum  animos  hodie  nimis  occupat. — Caltix. 

f  For  ';;,aas,  liiaz  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  (ex  emencJatione),  E.  F.  G.  1, 
21,  23,  29,  30,  37,  38,  39,  43,  52,  61;  in  both  the  Syriac.  in  the  Coptic,  Gothic, 
Latin  and  Armenian  versions,  and  in  several  of  the  fathers.  It  is  adopted  in  the 
Complutensian  edition,  and  in  those  of  Griesbach,  Mill,  Knapp  and  Lachroann. 

71 


562  ROMANS  15:  1—13. 

made  unto  the  fathers.  This  verse  follows  as  a  confirmation 
or  illustration  of  the  preceding.  Noiu  I  say,  i.  e.  this  I  mean. 
The  apostle  intends  to  show  how  it  was  that  Christ  had  re- 
ceived those  to  whom  he  wrote.  He  had  come  to  minister  to 
the  Jews,  v,  8,  and  also  to  cause  the  Gentiles  to  glorify  God, 
V.  9.  The  expression  minister  of  the  circumcision  means 
a  minister  sent  to  the  Jews,  as  '  apostle  of  the  Gentiles'  means 
*an  apostle  sent  to  the  Gentiles.'  For  the  truth  of  God,  i.  e. 
to  maintain  the  truth  of  God  in  the  accomplishment  of  the 
promises  made  to  the  fathers,  as  is  immediately  added.  Christ 
then  had  exhibited  the  greatest  condescension  and  kindness  in 
coming  not  as  a  Lord  or  ruler,  but  as  an  humble  minister  to  the 
Jews,  to  accomplish  the  gracious  promises  of  God.  As  this 
kindness  was  not  confined  to  them,  but  as  the  Gentiles  also  were 
received  into  his  kingdom  and  united  with  the  Jews  on  equal 
terms,  this  example  of  Christ  furnishes  the  strongest  motives 
for  the  cultivation  of  mutual  affection  and  unanimity. 

(9)  And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God  for  his 
mercy.  The  grammatical  connexion  of  this  sentence  with  the 
preceding  is  not  very  clear.  The  most  probable  explanation  is 
that  which  makes  (^ogaCai)  glorify  depend  upon  (Xs'yw)  I  say, 
in  V.  8.  'I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  became  a  minister  to  the 
Jews,  and  I  say  the  Gentiles  glorify  God;'  it  was  thus  he  re- 
ceived both.  Calvin  supplies  h'iv  and  translates,  "  The  Gentiles 
ought  to  glorify  God  for  his  mercy;"  which  is  not  necessary, 
and  does  not  so  well  suit  the  context.  The  mercy  for  which 
the  Gentiles  were  to  praise  God,  is  obviously  the  great  mercy 
of  being  received  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  made  par- 
takers of  all  its  blessings. 

Jis  it  is  written,  I  will  confess  to  thee  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  sing  unto  thy  name,  Ps.  18:  49.  In  this  and  the 
following  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  idea  is  more 
or  less  distinctly  expressed,  that  true  religion  was  to  be  extended 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  they  therefore  all  include  the  promise  of  the 
extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  to  them  as  well  as  to 
the  Jews. 

(10)  Jind  again,  Rejoice  ye  Gentiles  with  his  people. 
This  passage  is  commonly  considered  as  (juoted  from  Deut.  32: 
43,  where  it  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  precisely  as  it  stands 
here.     The  Hebrew  has,  "  praise  his  people,  0  ye  Gentiles," 


ROMANS  15:  1—13.  663 

at  least  according  to  the  common  reading;  according  to  some 
few  MSS.  the  Hebrew  express  the  same  sense  as  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  There  is  another  difliculty  in  the  way  of  supposing 
that  this  is  a  quotation  from  Deut.  32:  43;  the  sacred  writer  is 
not  there  speaking  of  the  blessing  of  the  Jews  being  extended 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  seems  rather  in  the  whole  context  to  be  de- 
nouncing vengeance  on  them  as  the  enemies  of  God's  people. 
Calvin  and  others  therefore  refer  this  citation  to  Ps.  07:  3,  5, 
where  the  sentiment  is  clearly  expressed  though  not  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  words. 

(11)  And  again,  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  Gentiles;  and  laud 
him,  all  ye  people.  This  passage  is  from  Ps.  117:  l,and  strictly 
to  the  apostle's  purpose. 

(12)  And  again,  Esaias  saith.  There  shall  be  a  root  of 
Jesse,  and  he  that  shall  rise  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles;  in  him 
shall  the  Gentiles  trust.  Is.  11:  1,  10.  This  is  an  explicit 
prediction  of  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah  over  other  nations 
besides  the  Jews.  Here  again  the  apostle  follows  tlic  Septua- 
gint,  giving  however  the  sense  of  the  original  Hebrew.  The 
promise  of  the  prophet  is  that  from  the  decayed  and  fallen  house 
of  David,  one  should  arise  whose  dominion  should  embrace  all 
nations,  and  in  whom  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  should  trust.  In 
the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  Christ  came,  and  preached  sal- 
vation to  those  who  were  near  and  to  those  who  were  far  off. 
As  both  classes  had  been  thus  kindly  received  by  the  conde- 
scending Saviour,  and  united  into  one  community,  they  should 
recognise  and  love  each  other  as  brethren,  laying  aside  all  cen- 
soriousness  and  contempt,  neither  judging  nor  despising  one 
another. 

(13)  Now  then  the  God  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy  and 
peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope  through  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Paul  here,  as  in  v.  5,  concludes 
by  praying  that  God  would  grant  them  the  excellencies  which 
it  was  their  duty  to  possess.  Thus  constantly  and  intimately 
are  the  ideas  of  accountablenessand  dependence  connected  in  the 
sacred  scriptures.  We  are  to  work  out  our  own  salvation,  be- 
cause it  is  God  that  worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do,  accor- 
ding to  his  good  pleasure.  The  God  of  hope,  i.  e.  God  who  is 
the  author  of  that  hope  which  it  was  predicted  men  should  ex- 
ercise in  the  root  and  offspring  of  Jesse. 


564  ROMANS  15:  14—33. 

Fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  i.  e.  fill  you 
with  that  joy  and  concord  among  yourselves,  as  well  as  peace 
of  conscience  and  peace  towards  God,  which  are  the  results  of 
genuine  faith.  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope.  The  conse- 
quence of  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings,  and  of  the  exercise 
of  the  graces  just  referred  to,  would  be  an  increase  in  the 
strength  and  joyfulness  of  their  hope;  through  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  through  whom  all  good  is  given  and  all  good 
exercised. 


CHAP.  15:  14—33. 

Analysis. 
The  apostle,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  epistle,  assures  the 
Romans  of  his  confidence  in  them,  and  that  his  motive  for 
writing  was  not  so  much  any  idea  of  their  peculiar  deficiency, 
as  the  desire  of  putting  them  in  mind  of  those  things  which  they 
already  knew,  vs.  14, 15.  This  he  was  the  rather  entitled  to  do 
on  account  of  his  apostolic  office  conferred  upon  him  by  divine 
appointment,  and  confirmed  by  the  signs  and  wonders  and 
abundant  success  with  which  God  had  crowned  his  ministry, 
vs.  15,  16.  He  had  sufficient  ground  of  confidence  in  this 
respect,  in  the  results  of  his  own  labours,  without  at  all  en- 
croaching upon  what  belonged  to  others,  for  he  had  made  it  a 
rule  not  to  preach  where  others  had  proclaimed  the  gospel,  but 
to  go  to  places  where  Christ  was  previously  unknown,  vs. 
17 — 21.  His  labours  had  been  such  as  hitherto  to  prevent  the 
execution  of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome.  Now,  however,  he 
hoped  to  have  that  pleasure  on  his  way  to  Spain,  as  soon  as  he 
had  accomplished  his  mission  to  Jerusalem  with  the  contribu- 
tions of  the  Christians  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia  for  the  poor 
saints  in  Judea,  vs.  22 — 28.  Having  accomplished  this  service, 
he  hoped  to  visit  Rome  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  In  the  mean  time  he  begs  an  interest  in  their 
prayers,  and  commends  them  to  the  grace  of  God,  vs.  29 — 33. 

Commentary. 
(14)  Jind  I  myself  also  am  persuaded  of  you,  my  brethren, 
that  ye  also  are  full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all  knowledge. 


ROMANS  15:  14—33.  565 

able  also  to  admoniah  one  another*  Paul,  with  his  wonted 
modesty  and  mildness,  apologises,  as  it  were,  for  the  plainness 
and  ardour  of  his  exhortations.  They  were  friven  from  no  want 
of  confidence  in  the  Roman  Christians;  and  they  were  not  an 
unwarrantable  assumption  of  authority  on  his  part.  The  former 
of  these  ideas  he  presents  in  this  verse,  and  the  latter  in  the 
next.  That  ye  aha  are  full  of  goodness,  i.  e.  of  kind  and 
conciliatory  feelings,  and  filled  with  all  knowledge,  i.  e. 
abundantly  instructed  on  these  subjects,  so  as  to  be  able  to 
instruct  or  admonish  each  other.!  It  was,  therefore,  no  want  of 
confidence  in  their  disposition  or  ability  to  discharge  their 
duties,  that  led  him  to  wi-ite  to  them;  his  real  motive  he  states 
in  the  next  verse. 

(15)  Nevertheless,  brethren,  Ihaveivritten  the  more  boldly 
unto  you  in  some  sort,  as  putting  you  in  mind,  because  of 
the  grace  given  to  me  of  God.  It  was  rather  to  remind  than 
to  instruct  them,  that  the  apostle  wrote  thus  freely.  The  words 
(a'jro  fxs'^oug)  in  S07ne  sort  are  intended  to  qualify  the  words  more 
boldly,  '  I  have  written  somewhat  too  boldly.'  How  striking 
the  blandness  and  humility  of  the  great  apostle  !  The  prece- 
ding exhortations  and  instructions,  for  which  he  thus  apologises, 
are  full  of  affection  and  heavenly  wisdom.  Wliat  a  reproof  is 
this  for  the  arrogant  and  denunciatory  addresses  which  so  often 
are  given  by  men  who  think  they  have  Paul  for  an  example! 
These  words  {in  some  sort),  however,  may  be  connected  with 
/  have  written;  the  sense  would  then  be,  '  I  have  written  in 
part  (i.  e.  in  some  parts  of  my  epistle)  very  boldly.'  The 
former  method  seems  tlie  more  natural.  When  a  man  acts  the 
part  of  a  monitor,  he  should  not  only  perform  the  duty  properly, 
but  he  should,  on  some  ground,  have  a  right  to  assume  this 
office.     Paul,  therefore,  says,  that  he  reminded  the  Romans  of 

*  For  aXX'/jXoUa  each  other,  aXkovg  others  is  read  in  the  MSS.  1,  2,  4,  6,  10, 
14,  15,  17,  18,  20,  23,  29,  32,  35,  38,  43,  46,  48,  52,  54,  62,  63;  in  the  Syriac 
version,  and  by  many  of  the  Greek  fathers.  The  Coniplutensian  editors,  Bezo, 
Wetstein  and  Griesbach  adopt  this  reading. 

f  Duae  monitoris  praocipuac  sunt  dotes,  humanitas  quae  et  illius  auimuni  ad 
juvandos  consilio  suo  fratrcs  inclinot,  et  vuhuui  vorbaijue  comitate  temperet :  et 
consilii  dexteritas,  sive  prudentia,  quae  et  auctoritatem  illi  eonciliet,  ut  prodessc 
queat  auditoribus,  ad  quos  dirigitscrmonem.  IN'ihil  enim  niagis  contriuium  fniteinis 
monitionibus,  quam  malignitas  et  arrogantia,  quae  facit  ut  errantes  fastuosc  con- 
temnamus,  et  ludibrio  habere  malimus,  quiun  corrigere. — Caltis. 


566  ROMANS  15:  14—33. 

their  tlut)^,  because  he  was  entitled  to  do  so  in  virtue  of  his 
apostolical  character;  beccnise  of  the  grace  given  to  me  of 
God.  Grace  here,  as  appears  from  the  context,  signifies  the 
apostleship  which  Paul  represents  as  a  favour;  see  ch.  1:  5. 

(16)  That  I  should  be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
Gentiles.  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  grace  given  to  him  of 
God;  it  was  the  favour  of  being  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
the  Gentiles.  Compare  Eph.  3:  1,  "Unto  me,  who  am  the 
least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should  preach,  among 
the  Gentiles,  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ."  The  word 
(XsiTou^/o's)  rendered  minister,  means  a  public  officer  or  servant; 
see  ch.  13:6,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  civil  magistrate.  It  is, 
however,  very  frequently  used  (as  is  also  the  corresponding 
verb)  of  those  who  exercised  the  office  of  a  priest,  Deut.  10:  8. 
Heb.  10:  11.  As  the  whole  of  this  verse  is  figurative,  Paul  no 
doubt  had  this  force  of  the  word  in  his  mind,  when  he  called 
himself  a  minister,  a  sacred  officer  of  Jesus  Christ;  not  a  priest, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  for  the  ministers  of  the  gospel 
are  never  so  called  in  the  New  Testament,  l)ut  merely  in  a 
figurative  sense.  The  sacrifice  which  they  offer  are  the  people, 
whom  they  are  instrumental  in  bringing  unto  God. 

Ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the  offering  np  of 
the  Gentiles  might  be  acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  is  the  apostle's  explanation  of  the  preceding 
clause.  '  He  was  appointed  a  minister  of  Christ  to  administer, 
or  to  act  the  part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel,  that  is, 
to  present  the  Gentiles  as  a  holy  sacrifice  to  God.'  Paul,  there- 
fore, no  more  calls  himself  a  priest  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term,  than  he  calls  the  Gentiles  a  sacrifice  in  the  literal  meaning 
of  that  word.  The  expression  (if^ou^/ouvTa  to  rJa^ys'Xiov)  rendered 
ministering  the  gospel  is  peculiar,  and  has  been  variously  ex- 
plained. Erasmus  translates  it  sacrificans  evangelium,  '  pre- 
senting the  gospel  as  a  sacrifice;'  Calvin,  consecrans  evange- 
lium, which  he  explains, '  performing  the  sacred  mysteries  of 
the  gospel.'  The  general  meaning  of  the  phrase  probably  is 
'  acting  the  part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel.' 

The  sense  is  the  same,  if  the  word  {smyyi'km)  gospel  be 
made  to  depend  on  a  word  understood,  and  the  whole  sen- 
tence be  resolved  tluis,  '  That  I  should  l)c  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel  (si's  to  s/vai'  \>.i  x^xjddona.  to  si)  to  the  Gentiles,  a  minis- 


ROMANS  15:  14—33.  567 

tering  priest  (i.  e.  a  minister  acting  the  part  of  a  priest)  of 
Jesus  Christ,'  Wahl's  Clavis,  p.  740.  Paul  thus  acted  the 
part  of  a  priest  that  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  might 
be  acceptable.  The  word  (T^otfqjoffa)  offering  sometimes  means 
the  act  of  oblation,  sometimes  the  thing  offered.  Our  trans- 
lators have  taken  it  here  in  the  former  sense;  but  this  is  not 
so  suitable  to  the  figure  or  the  context.  It  was  not  Paul's 
act  that  was  to  be  acceptable,  or  which  was  '  sanctified  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.'  The  latter  sense  of  the  word,  therefore,  is  to  be 
preferred;  and  the  meaning  is,  '  That  the  Gentiles,  as  a  sacrifice, 
might  be  acceptable;'  see  ch.  12:  1.  Phil.  2:  17.  2  Tim,  4:  6. 
Being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  the  sacrifices  were 
purified  by  water  and  other  means,  when  prepared  for  the  altar, 
so  we  are  made  fit  for  the  service  of  God,  rendered  holy  or 
acceptable,  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  an  idea 
which  Paul  never  omits;  when  speaking  of  the  success  of  his 
labours,  or  of  the  eflicacy  of  the  gospel,  he  is  careful  lliat  this 
success  should  not  be  ascribed  to  the  instruments,  but  to  the  real 
author.  In  this  beautiful  passage  we  see  the  nature  of  the  only 
priesthood  which  belongs  to  the  Christian  ministry.  It  is  not 
their  office  to  make  atonement  for  sin,  or  to  otTer  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  to  God,  but  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  bring 
men,  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  oft'cr  themselves 
as  a  living  sacrifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to  God.* 

(17)  /  have  therefore  tvhereof  to  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  in  those  things  which  pertain  to  God.  Tliat  is,  '  see- 
ing I  have  received  this  office  of  God,  and  am  appointed  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  I  have  (xaup^rjtfjv)  ground 
of  confidence  and  rejoicing.'  As,  in  the  previous  verses,  Paul 
had  asserted  his  divine  appointment  as  an  apostle,  he  shows,  in 
this  and  tlie  following  verses,  that  the  assertion  was  well  found- 
ed, as  God  had  crowned  his  labours  with  success,  and  sealed  his 
ministry  with  signs  and  wonders.  He,  therefore,  was  entitled, 
as  a  minister  of  God,  to  exiiort  and  admonish  his  brethren  with 

*  Et  sane  hoc  est  Christiani  pastoris  saccrdotium,  homines  in  evansrelii  obedien- 
tiam  subigendo  vekiti  Deo  iinmolare :  non  auteni,  quod  supcrciliose  hactenus  Pa- 
pistaejactarunt,  oblatioiie  Christ!  lioinines  reconciliare  Deo.  Ncque  tamon  ercle- 
siasticos  pastores  siinplicitcr  hie  vorat  saeerdotes,  tanquani  porjH'tuo  titulo:  sed 
quum  dignitatem  efficaeianiquc  niinisterii  vcllct  commendarc  Paulus,  hac  meto- 
phora  per  occasioiiem  lusus  est. — Calvis. 


568  ROMANS  15:  14—33. 

the  boldness  and  authority  which  he  had  used  in  this  epistle. 
This  gS^ound  of  boasting,  however,  he  had  only  in  or  through 
Jesus  Christ,  all  was  to  be  attributed  to  him;  and  it  was  in 
reference  to  things  pertaining  to  God,  i.  e.  the  preaching  and 
success  of  the  gospel,  not  to  his  personal  advantages  or  worldly 
distinctions.  There  is  another  interpretation  of  the  latter  part 
of  this  verse  which  also  gives  a  good  sense.  '  I  have  therefore 
ground  of  boasting,  (i.  e,  I  have)  offerings  for  God,  viz,  Gen- 
tile converts.'  (The  words  tcc  it^lg  tov  Sso'v  are  understood  as 
synonymous  with  the  word  ir^niJcpo^a.  of  the  preceding  verse, 
ff^otfsvsj^Sivra  being  supplied).  The  common  view  of  the  pas- 
sage, however,  is  more  simple  and  natural. 

(18,  19)  In  these  verses  the  apostle  explains  more  fully  what 
he  had  intended  by  saying  he  had  ground  of  confidence  or 
boasting.  It  was  that  God  had  borne  abundant  testimony  to 
his  claims  as  a  divinely  commissioned  preacher  of  the  gospel;  so 
that  he  had  no  need  to  refer  to  what  others  had  done;  he  was 
satisfied  to  rest  his  claims  on  the  results  of  his  own  labours  and 
the  testimony  of  God.  For  I  tvill  not  dare  to  speak  of  any 
of  those  things  ichich  Christ  hath  not  ivroirght  by  ine. 
That  is,  '  I  will  not  claim  the  credit  due  to  others,  or  appeal  to 
results  which  I  have  not  been  instrumental  in  effecting.'  It  is 
to  be  remarked  that  the  apostle  represents  himself  as  merely  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  Christ  for  the  conversion  of  men; 
the  real  efficiency  he  ascribes  to  the  Redeemer.  This  passage, 
therefore,  exhibits  evidence  that  Paul  regarded  Christ  as  still 
exercising  a  controlling  agency  over  the  souls  of  men,  and  ren- 
dering effectual  the  labours  of  his  faithful  ministers.  Such 
power  the  sacred  writers  never  attribute  to  any  being  but  God. 
To  make  the  Gentiles  obedient,  i.  e.  to  the  gospel;  compare 
ch.  1 :  5,  where  the  same  form  of  expression  occurs.  The  obe- 
dience of  which  Paul  speaks  is  the  sincere  obedience  of  the 
heart  and  life.  This  result  he  says  Christ  effected,  through  his 
instrumentality,  by  word  and  deed,  not  merely  by  truth,  but 
also  by  those  means  which  Christ  employed  to  render  the  truth 
effectual.  What  is  to  be  understood  by  this  expression,  or  how 
the  truth  was  rendered  effectual,  is  explained  in  the  next 
verse. 

(19)  Through  mighty  signs  and  ivonders,  by  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  i.  e,  by  miracles  and  by  the  influences 


ROMANS  15:  1  1—33.  569 

of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  passage  is,  therefore,  analogous  to 
that  in  1  Cor.  2:  4,  "My  speech  and  preaching  was  nd#in  the 
enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  power."  That  is,  he  relied  for  success  not  on  his 
own  skill  or  eloquence,  but  on  the  powerful  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit.  This  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  consisted  partly 
in  the  miracles  which  he  enabled  the  first  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel to  perform,  and  partly  in  the  influence  with  which  he 
attended  the  truth  to  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  those  that 
believed;  see  Gal.  3:  2 — 5.  Heb.  2:  4. 

So  that  from  Jei^usaleni,  and  round  about  nnto  Ilhjricinn^ 
I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ.  That  is,  I  have 
been  so  aided  and  blessed  of  God,  that  throughout  a  most  ex- 
tensive region  I  have  successfully  preached  the  gospel.  God 
had  given  his  seal  to  Paul's  apostleship  by  making  him  so 
abundantly  useful.  I  have  fully  preached  expresses,  no  doubt, 
the  sense  of  the  original  (■irS'rXri^wxsvai  to  s\)ayyi'Km),  to  bring  the 
gospel  (i.  e.  the  preaching  of  it)  to  an  end,  to  accomplish  it 
thoroughly;  see  Col.  1 :  25.  In  this  wide  circuit  had  the  apostle 
preached,  founding  churches,  and  advancing  the  Redeemer's 
kingdom  with  such  evidence  of  the  divine  co-operation,  as  to 
leave  no  ground  of  douI)t  that  he  was  a  divinely  appointed  min- 
ister of  Christ. 

(20,  21)  In  further  confirmation  of  this  point,  Paul  states 
that  he  had  not  acted  the  part  of  a  pastor  merely,  but  of  an 
apostle  or  founder  of  the  church,  disseminating  the  gospel 
where  it  was  before  unknown,  so  that  the  evidence  of  his  apos- 
tleship might  be  undeniable;  compare  1  Cor.  9:  2,  "If  I  be  not 
an  apostle  unto  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you;  for  the  seal  of 
my  apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord;"  and  2  Cor.  3:  2,  3,  Yea, 
so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  where  Christ  ivas 
named,  lest  I  should  build  on  another  man's  foundation; 
that  is,  '  I  have  been  desirous  of  not  preaching  where  Christ 
was  before  known,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  accomplish  the  pre- 
diction that  those  who  had  not  heard  should  understand.'  The 
motive  which  influenced  him  in  taking  this  course  was  lest  he 
should  build  upon  another  mans  foundation.  This  may 
mean  either,  lest  I  should  appropriate  to  myself  the  result  of 
other  men's  labours;  or,  lest  I  should  act  the  part  not  of  an 
apostle  (to  which  I  was  called),  but  of  a  simple  pastor. 


570  ROMANS  15:  14—33. 

(21)  But,  as  it  is  written,  To  whom  he  was  not  spoken  of, 
they  shall  see;  and  they  that  have  not  heard  shall  under- 
stand. That  is,  I  acted  in  the  spirit  of  the  prediction,  that 
Christ  should  be  preached  where  he  had  not  been  known.  -  It 
had  been  foretold  in  Is.  52:  15,  that  Christ  should  be  preached 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  those  who  had  never  heard  of  his  name;  it 
was  in  accordance  with  this  prediction  that  Paul  acted.  There 
is,  however,  no  objection  to  considering  this  passage  as  merely 
an  expression,  in  borrowed  language,  of  the  apostle's  own  ideas; 
the  meaning  then  is,  '  I  endeavoured  to  preach  the  gospel  not 
where  Christ  was  named,  but  to  cause  those  to  see  to  whom  he 
had  not  been  announced,  and  those  to  understand  who  had  not 
heard.'  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  manner  of 
using  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament;  see  ch.  10:  15,  18. 
But  as,  in  this  case,  the  passage  cited  is  clearly  a  prediction, 
the  first  method  of  explanation  should  probably  be  preferred. 
A  result  of  this  method  of  interweaving  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament,  is  often,  as  in  this  case  and  v.  3,  a  want  of  gram- 
matical coherence  between  the  different  members  of  the  sen- 
tence; see  1  Cor.  2:  9. 

(22)  For  which  cause  also  I  have  been  much  hindered  from 
coming  to  you.  That  is,  his  desire  to  make  Christ  known 
where  he  had  not  been  named,  had  long  prevented  his  intended 
journey  to  Rome,  where  he  knew  the  gospel  had  already  been 
preached. 

(23)  But  now  having  no  more  place  in  these  parts,  and 
having  a  great  desire  these  many  years  to  come  unto  you, 
&c.  The  expression  having  no  more  place  {\i.y\xki  totov  Ix'^^)? 
in  this  connexion,  would  seem  obviously  to  mean  '  having  no 
longer  a  place  in  these  parts  where  Christ  is  not  known.'  This 
idea  is  included  in  the  declaration  that  he  had  fully  preached 
the  gospel  in  all  that  region.  Others  take  the  word  (toVov)  ren- 
dered place  to  signify  occasion,  opportunity ,  '  Having  no 
longer  an  opportunity  of  preaching  here;'  see  Acts  25:  16. 
Heb.  12:  17.. 

(24)  Whensoever  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  ivill 
come  to  you;  for  I  trust  to  see  you  in  my  journey,  and  to 
he  brought  on  my  way  thitlicrward  by  you,  if  first  I  be 
somewhat  filled  with  your  company.  Whensoever  (wj  iav  for 
wg  av),  as  soon  as;  '  As  soon  as  I  take  my  journey,  &.c.'     The 


ROMANS  15:  14—33.  571 

words  in  the  original  corresponding  to  /  will  come  unto  you, 
for  are  omitted  in  many  MSS.*  The  sense  is  complete  without 
them,  'As  soon  as  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  hope  to  see 
you  on  my  way.'  If  the  word  for  be  retained,  the  passage 
must  be  differently  pointed, '  Having  a  great  desire  to  see  you, 
as  soon  as  I  go  to  Spain,  (for  I  hope  on  my  way  to  see  you, 
&c.  &c.)  but  now  I  go  to  Jerusalem.'  Whether  Paul  ever  ac- 
complished his  purpose  of  visiting  Spain,  is  a  matter  of  doubt 
There  is  no  historical  record  of  his  having  done  so,  either  in 
the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers; 
though  most  of  those  writers  seem  to  have  taken  it  for  granted. 
His  whole  plan  was  probably  deranged  by  the  occurrences  at 
Jerusalem  which  led  to  his  long  imprisonment  at  Cesarea,  and 
his  being  sent  in  bonds  to  Rome,  To  be  brought  on  7ny  way; 
the  original  word  means,  in  the  active  voice,  to  attend  any  one 
on  a  journey  for  some  distance,  as  an  expression  of  kindness  and 
respect;  and  also  to  make  provision  for  his  journey;  see  Acts 
15:  3.  20:  38.  1  Cor.  16:  6.  2  Cor.  1:  10. 

(25)  But  now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  unto  the 
saints,  i.  e,  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  saints,  distributing  to 
them  the  contributions  of  the  churches;  see  Heb.  G:  10;  com- 
pare also  Matt.  8:  15.  Mark  1:  31.  Luke  4:  39,  in  which  places 
the  word  (^laxovsw)  signifies  to  set  food  before  any  one;  and, 
hence,  more  generally,  to  s^ipply  his  necessities. 

(26,  27)  For  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia  and 
Schaia  to  make  a  contribution  for  the  ])Oor  saints  which 
are  at  Jerusalem.  Having  mentioned  this  fact,  the  apostle 
immediately  seizes  the  opportunity  of  showing  the  reasonable- 
ness and  duty  of  making  these  contributions.  This  he  docs  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  detract  from  the  credit  due  to  the  Grecian 
churches,  while  he  shows  that  it  was  but  a  matter  of  justice  to 
act  as  they  had  done.  //  hath  pleased  them  verily;  and  their 
debtors  they  are,  i.  e.  '  It  pleased  them  /  say  (yae  redordicndae 
orationi  inservit),  they  did  it  voluntarily,  yet  it  was  but  rea- 
sonable they  should  do  it.'     The  ground  of  this,  statement  is 

*  The  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  the  Syriac.  Coptic,  Ethiopic  anil  Latin  versions, 
some  of  the  Greek  and  most  of  the  Latin  fathers  omit  jXiJCo.aai  t^oc;  ofxap, 
and  most  of  these  authorities  omit  ya^.  Mill,  Griesbach  and  Knapp,  omit  Iwtli ; 
Lachmaiin  retains  ya^. 


572  ROMANS  15:  H— 33. 

immediately  added:  for  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made 
partakers  of  their  spiritual  things,  their  duty  is  also  to 
minister  to  them  in  carnal  things.  'If  the  Gentiles  have 
received  the  greater  good  from  the  Jews,  they  may  Avell  be 
expected  to  contribute  the  lesser.'  The  word  {\ci<Tw^yr,aai) 
rendered  to  minister  may  have  the  general  sense  of  serving; 
or  it  may  be  used  with  some  allusion  to  the  service  being  a 
sacred  duty,  a  kind  of  offering  which  is  acceptable  to  God.* 

(28)  When,  therefore,  I  have  done  this,  and  sealed  unto 
them  this  fruit,  I  ivill  come  by  you  into  Spain.  The  word 
sealed  appears  here  to  be  used  figuratively,  '  When  I  have 
safely  delivered  this  fruit  to  them;'  compare  2  Kings  22:  4, 
"  Go  up  to  Hilkiah  the  High  Priest,  and  sum  (seal  gcp^ayKJov) 
the  silver,  &c."  Commentators  compare  the  use  of  the  Latin 
words  consignare,  consignatio,  and  of  the  English  word 
consign. 

(29)  And  I  am  sure  that  when  I  come  unto  you,  I  shall 
come  in  the  fuhiess  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospeli  of  Christ. 
The  fulness  of  the  blessing  means  the  abundant  blessing. 
Paul  was  persuaded  that  God,  who  had  so  richly  crowned  his 
labours  in  other  places,  would  cause  his  visit  to  Rome  to  be 
attended  by  those  abundant  blessings  which  tlie  gospel  of  Christ 
is  adapted  to  produce.  He  had,  in  ch.  1:  11,  expressed  his 
desire  to  visit  the  Roman  Christians,  that  he  might  impart  unto 
them  some  spiritual  gift  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  established. 

(30)  Noio  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for  our  Lord  Jesus 
ChrisVs  sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive 
together  with  me  in  your  prayers  to  God  for  me.  As  the 
apostle  was  not  immediately  to  see  them,  and  knew  that  he 
would,  in  the  meantime,  be  exposed  to  many  dangers,  he  ear- 
nestly begged  them  to  aid  him  with  their  prayers.  He  enforces 
this  request  by  the  tenderest  considerations;  for  our  Lord 

*  Nee  dubito,  quin  significct  Paulus  sacrificii  spcciem  esse,  quum  de  suo 
erogant  fidcles  ad  ot^cstatem  fratrum  levandam.  8ic  enim  porsolvuiit  quod  dcbent 
caritatis  officium,  ut  Deo  simul  hostiam  grati  odoris  ollerant:  scd  pioprio  hoc  loco 
ad  illud  mutuum  jus  compcnsationis  resj)cxit. — Calvix. 

\  The  words  tou  ZMjyBkm  Toy  arc  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  F.  G.  G7,  in 
the  Coptic  and  Ethiopic  versions,  and  by  some  of  the  Latin  fixthers.  Mill, 
GniKSBACH  and  Lachmann  leave  them  out.  The  sense  remains  the  same,  "I 
shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  Itlessing  of  Christ." 


ROMANS  15:  11— 33.  573 

Jesus  Christ's  salce,  I  e.  out  of  regard  to  the  Lord  Jesus; 
*  whatever  regard  you  have  for  him,  and  whatever  desire  to  see 
his  cause  prosper  in  which  I  am  engaged,  let  it  induce  you  to 
pray  for  me.'     ^nd  for  the  love  of  tlie  Spirit,  i.  c.  '  for  that 
love  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  author,  and  i)y  which  he  hinds 
the  hearts  of  Christians  together,   I    beseech    you,  &c.'     He 
appeals,  therefore,  not  only  to  their  love  of  Christ,  but  to  their 
love  for  himself  as  a  fellow  Christian.     Ttiat  ye  strive  together 
luith  tne  {dwayuivigus^ai  fjioi),  i.  e.  that  ye  aid  me  in  my  conflict 
by  taking  part  in  it.'     This  they  were  to  do  by  tlieir  pravers. 
(31)    That  I  may  be  delivered  frotn  them  that  do  no!  be- 
lieve ill  Jiidea.     There  are  three  objects  for  whicli  he  particu- 
larly wished  them  to  pray;  his  safety,  the  successful  issue  of 
his  mission,  and  that  he  might  come  to  them  with   joy.     How 
much  reason  Paul  had  to  dread  the  violence  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  is  evident  from  the  history  given  of  this  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem, in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     They  endeavoured   to  de- 
stroy his  life,  accused  him  to  the  Roman  governor,  and  effected 
his  imprisonment  for  two  years  in  Cesarea,  wlience  he  was  sent 
in  chains  to  Rome.     Nor  were  his  a])prehensions  conliu(Ml  lo 
the  unbelieving  Jews;  he  knew  that  even  the  Christians  tlicre, 
from  their  narrow  minded  prejudices  against  him  as  a  preacher 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  as  the  advocate  of  the  liberty  of  Christians 
from  the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  were  greatly  embittered  against 
him.    He,  therefore,  begs  the  Roman  believers  to  pray  that  the 
service  which  (he  had) /or  Jerusalem  might  be  accepted  of  the 
saints.     The  words  service  which  I  have,  &c.  (>;  (Siaxovia  fxo-j  ») 
ai's  is^ourfaXrjfx)  means  the  contribution  which  I  carry  to  Jeru- 
salem; see  the  use  of  this  word  (Jiaxovla)  in  2  Cor,  8:4.  9:  1,13. 
Paul  laboured  for  those  whom  he  knew  regarded  him  with  little 
favour;  he  calls  them  saints,  recognises  their  Christian  charac- 
ter, notwithstanding  their  unkindness,  and  urges  his  brethren 
to  pray  that  they  might  be  willing  to  accept  of  kindness  at  bis 
hands. 

(32)  That  I  may  come  unto  you  luith  joy  by  the  will  of 
God,  and  that  I  may  with  you  be  refreshed.  These  words 
may  depend  upon  the  former  part  of  the  preceding  verse,  '  Pray 
that  I  may  come;'  or,  upon  the  latter  part,  '  Pray  that  I  may  be 
delivered  from  the  Jews,  and  my  contributions  be  accepted,  so 
that  I  may  come  with  joy,  &c.'     By  the  will  of  God,  i.  e.  by 


374  ROMANS  15:  14—33. 

the  permission  and  favour  of  God.  Paul  seemed  to  look  for- 
ward to  his  interview  with  the  Christians  at  Rome,  as  a  season 
of  relief  from  conflict  and  labour.  In  Jerusalem  he  was  beset 
by  unbelieving  Jews,  and  harrassed  by  Judaizing  Christians; 
in  most  other  places  he  was  burdened  with  the  care  of  the 
churches;  but  at  Rome,  which  he  looked  upon  as  a  resting-place 
rather  than  a  field  of  labour,  he  hoped  to  gather  strength  for  the 
prosecution  of  his  apostolic  labours  in  still  more  distant  lands. 
(33)  Now  the  peace  of  God  hG  ivith  you  all.  As  he  begged 
them  to  pray  for  him,  so  he  prays  for  them.  It  is  a  prayer  of 
one  petition;  so  full  of  meaning,  however,  that  no  other  need 
be  added.  The  peace  of  God,  that  peace  which  God  gives,  in- 
cludes all  the  mercies  necessary  for  the  perfect  blessedness  of 
the  soul. 

Doctrines. 

1.  The  sacred  scriptures  are  designed  for  men  in  all  ages  of 
the  world,  and  are  the  great  source  of  religious  knowledge  and 
consolation,  v.  4. 

2.  The  moral  excellences  which  we  are  justly  required  to 
attain,  and  the  consolations  which  we  are  commanded  to  seek 
in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  are  still  the  gifts  of  God. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  inconsistency  between  the  doctrines  of 
free  agency  and  dependence,  vs.  5,  13. 

3.  Those  are  to  be  received  and  treated  as  Christians  whom 
Christ  himself  has  received.  Men  have  no  right  to  make  terms 
of  communion  which  Christ  has  not  made,  v.  7. 

4.  There  is  no  distinction  under  the  gospel  between  the  Jew 
and  Gentile;  Christ  has  received  both  classes  upon  the  same 
terms  and  to  the  same  privileges,  vs.  8 — 12. 

5.  The  quotation  of  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  sacred  writers  of  the  New,  and  the  application  of  them  in 
proof  of  their  doctrines,  involves  an  acknowledgement  of  the 
divine  authority  of  the  ancient  prophets.  And  as  these  pre- 
dictions are  quoted  indiscriminately  from  all  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  evident  that  the  apostles  believed  in  the  inspi- 
ration of  all  the  books  included  in  the  sacred  canon  by  the 
Jews,  vs.  9 — 12. 

6.  Christian  ministers  are  not  priests,  i.  e.  they  are  not  ap- 
pointed to  "  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins."     It  is  no  part  of 


ROMANS  15:  14—33.  575 

their  work  to  make  atonement  for  the  people;  tliis  Christ  lias 
done  by  the  one  offering  up  of  himself,  whereby  he  has  for  ever 
perfected  them  that  are  sanctified,  v.  16. 

7.  The  truth  of  the  gospel  has  been  confirmed  by  God, 
through  mighty  signs  and  wonders  and  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Infidelity,  therefore,  is  a  disbelief  of  the  testimony  of 
God.  When  God  has  given  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  mis- 
sion of  his  servants,  the  sin  of  unbelief  is  not  relieved  by  the 
denial  that  the  evidence  is  satisfactory.  If  the  gospel  is  true, 
therefore,  infidelity  will  be  found  not  merely  to  be  a  mistake, 
but  a  crime,  v.  19. 

8.  The  success  of  a  minister  in  winning  souls  to  Christ  may 
be  fairly  appealed  to  as  evidence  that  he  preaches  the  truth. 
It  is,  when  clearly  ascertained,  as  decided  an  evidence  as  the 
performance  of  a  miracle;  because  it  is  as  really  the  result  of  a 
divine  agency.  This,  however,  like  all  other  evidence,  to  be  of 
any  value,mustbe  carefully  examined  and  faithfully  applied.  The 
success  may  be  real,  and  the  evidence  decisive,  but  it  may  be 
applied  improperly.  The  same  man  may  preach  (and  doubtless 
every  uninspired  man  docs  preach)  both  truth  and  error;  God 
may  sanction  and  bless  the  truth,  and  men  may  appeal  to  this 
blessing  in  support  of  the  error.  This  is  often  done.  Success 
therefore  is  of  itself  a  very  difficult  test  for  us  to  apply;  and 
must  ever  be  held  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  scriptures. 
Nothing  can  prove  that  to  be  true  which  the  bible  pronounces 
to  be  fiilse,  vs.  18,  19. 

9.  Prayer  (and  even  intercessory  prayer)  has  a  real  and 
important  efficacy;  not  merely  in  its  influence  on  the  mind  of 
him  who  offers  it,  but  also  in  securing  the  blessings  for  which 
we  pray.  Paul  directed  the  Roman  Christians  to  pray  for  the 
exercise  of  the  divine  providence  in  protecting  him  from 
danger,  and  for  the  Holy  S|)irit  to  influence  the  minds  of  the 
brethren  in  Jerusalem.  This  he  would  not  have  done  were 
such  petitions  of  no  avail,  vs.  30,  31. 

Rejnarks. 

1.  The  duty  of  a  disinterested  and  kind  regard  to  others 
in  the  exercise  of  our  Christian  liberty  is  one  of  the  leading 
topics  of  this,  as  it  is  of  the  preceding  ohajHcr,  vs.  1 — 13. 

2.  The  desire  to  please  others  should  be  wisely  directed,  and 


576  ROMANS  15:  1 1—33. 

spring  from  right  motives.  We  should  not  please  them  to 
their  own  injury,  nor  from  the  wish  to  secure  their  favour; 
but  for  their  good,  that  they  may  be  edified,  v.  2. 

3.  The  character  and  conduct  of  Jesus  Chi-ist  are  at  once  the 
most  perfect  model  of  excellence  and  the  most  persuasive  mo- 
tive to  obedience.  The  dignity  of  his  person,  the  greatness 
of  his  condescension,  the  severity  of  his  sufferings,  the  fervour 
of  his  love  towards  us,  all  combine  to  render  his  example  effec- 
tive in  humbling  us  in  view  of  our  own  short-comings,  and  in 
exciting  us  to  walk  even  as  he  walked,  vs.  4 — 13. 

4.  We  should  constantly  resort  to  the  scriptures  for  instruc- 
tion and  consolation.  They  were  written  for  this  purpose;  and 
we  have  no  right  to  expect  these  blessings  unless  we  use  the 
means  appointed  for  their  attainment.  As  God,  however,  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  works  all  good  in  us,  we  should 
rely  neither  on  the  excellence  of  the  means  nor  the  vigour  and 
diligence  of  our  own  exertions,  but  on  his  blessing,  which  is  to 
be  sought  by  prayer,  vs.  4,  5,  13. 

5.  Tlie  dissensions  of  Christians  are  dishonourable  to  God. 
They  must  be  of  one  mind,  i.  e.  sincerely  and  affectionately 
united,  if  they  would  glorify  their  Father  in  heaven,  vs.  5 — 7. 

6.  A  monitor  or  instructor  should  be  full  of  goodness  and 
knowledge.  The  human  heart  resists  censoriousness,  pride,  and 
ill  feeling  in  an  admonisher;  and  is  thrown  into  such  a  state  by 
the  exhibition  of  these  evil  dispositions,  that  the  truth  is  little 
likely  to  do  it  any  good.  As  oil  poured  on  water  smooths  its 
surface  and  renders  it  transparent;  so  does  kindness  calm  the 
minds  of  men,  and  prepares  them  for  the  ready  entrance  of  the 
truth.  Besides  these  qualifications,  he  who  admonishes  others 
should  be  entitled  thus  to  act.  It  is  not  necessary  that  this 
title  should  rest  on  his  official  station;  but  there  should  be 
superiority  of  some  kind,  of  age,  excellence,  or  knowledge,  to 
give  his  admonitions  due  effect.  Paul's  peculiar  modesty, 
humility  and  mildness,  should  serve  as  an  example  to  us,  vs. 
14,15. 

7.  We  should  be  careful  not  to  build  improperly  on  another 
man's  foundation.  Pastors  and  teachers  must  of  course  preach 
Christ  where  he  had  before  been  known;  hut  they  should  not 
appropriate  to  themselves  the  results  of  llie  labours  of  others,  or 
boast  of  things  which  Christ  has  not  wrought  by  thum.     The 


ROMANS  Ifi:  1—27.  577 

man  wlio  reaps  the  liarvest,  is  not  always  he  who  sowed  the 
seed.  One  plants  and  another  waters,  but  God  giveth  the 
increase.  So  then  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither 
he  that  watereth,  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase,  vs.  19,  20. 

8.  It  is  the  duty  of  those  who  have  the  means,  to  contribute 
to  the  necessities  of  others,  and  especially  to  the  wants  of  those 
from  whom  they  themselves  have  received  good,  vs.  26,  27. 

9.  The  fact  that  men  are  prejudiced  against  us,  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  not  do  them  good.  The  Jewish  Christians  were 
ready  to  denounce  Paul  and  to  cast  out  his  name  as  evil;  yet 
he  collected  contributions  for  them,  and  was  very  solicitous 
that  they  should  accept  of  his  services,  v.  31. 

10.  Danger  is  neither  to  be  courted  nor  fled  from;  but  en- 
countered with  humble  trust  in  God,  v.  31. 

11.  We  should  pray  for  others  in  such  a  way  as  really  to 
enter  into  their  trials  and  conflicts;  and  believe  that  our  prayers, 
when  sincere,  are  a  real  and  great  assistance  to  them.  It  is  a 
great  blessing  to  have  an  interest  in  the  prayers  of  the  righteous. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Contents. 
In  this  concluding  chapter,  Paul  first  commends  to  the  church 
at  Rome  the  deaconess  Phebe,  vs.  1,  2.  He  then  sends  his 
salutations  to  many  members  of  the  church,  and  other  Christians 
who  were  then  at  Rome,  vs.  3 — 16.  He  earnestly  exhorts  his 
brethren  to  avoid  those  who  cause  contentions;  and  after  com- 
mending their  obedience,  he  prays  for  God's  blessing  upon 
them,  vs.  17 — 21.  Salutations  from  the  apostle's  companions, 
vs.  22 — 24.     The  concluding  doxology,  vs.  25 — 27. 


CHAP.  16:  1—27. 

Coymnentary. 
(1)   /  commend  unto  you  Phcbe  our  sister,  which  is  a 
servant  of  the  church  which  is  at  Cenchrea.     Corinth,  being 
situated  on  a  narrow  isthmus,  had  two  ports,  one  towards  Europe, 

73 


578  ROMANS  16:  1—27. 

and  the  other  towards  Asia.  The  latter  was  called  Cenchrea, 
where  a  church  had  been  organized,  of  which  Phebe  was  a 
servant  (^laxovog),  i.  e.  deaconess.  It  appears  that  in  the 
apostolic  church,  elderly  females  were  selected  to  attend  upon 
the  poor  and  sick  of  their  own  sex.  Many  ecclesiastical  writers 
suppose  there  were  two  classes  of  these  female  officers;  the  one 
(if^stf/SuTi^sg,  corresponding  in  some  measure  in  their  duties  to 
the  elders),  having  the  oversight  of  the  conduct  of  the  younger 
female  Christians;  and  the  other  whose  duty  was  to  attend  to 
the  sick  and  the  poor.  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  under  the  word 
^laxovoj,  and  Bingham's  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities,  11,  12.  Au- 
gusti's  Denkwurdigkeiten  der  christl.  Archaologie. 

(2)  That  ye  7^eceive  her  in  the  Lord.  The  words  in  the 
Lord  may  be  connected  either  with  receive, '  receive  her  in  a 
religious  manner  and  from  religious  motives;'  or  with  the 
pronoun,  her  in  the  Lord,  her  as  a  Christian.  The  apostle 
presents  two  considerations  to  enforce  this  exhortation;  first, 
regard' for  their  Christian  character;  and,  secondly,  the  service 
which  Phebe  had  rendered  to  others.  Jis  hecometh  saints;  this 
expression  at  once  describes  the  manner  in  which  they  ought  to 
receive  her,  and  suggests  the  motive  for  so  doing.  Jind  that 
ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath  need  of  yon. 
They  were  not  only  to  receive  her  with  courtesy  and  affection, 
but  to  aid  her  in  any  way  in  which  she  required  their  assistance. 
The  words  (sv  w  av  v^ay^aTi)  in  lohatsoever  business,  are  to  be 
taken  very  generally,  i7i  whatever  matter,  or  in  whatever 
respect.  For  she  hath  been  a  snccourer  of  many  and  of 
m,y self  also.  The  word  (T^orfTaTjg)  snccourer  means  a  patro- 
ness, a  benefactor;  it  is  a  highly  honourable  title.  As  she  had 
so  frequently  aided  others,  it  was  but  reasonable  that  she  should 
be  assisted. 

(3)  Salute  Friscilla*  and  Jiquila,  my  helpers  in  Christ 
Jesus,  i.  e  my  fellow  labourers  in  the  promotion  of  the  gospel. 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  are  mentioned  in  Acts  18:  2,  as  having 
left  Rome  in  consequence  of  the  edict  of  Claudius.  After  re- 
maining at  Ephesus  a  long  time,  it  seems  that  they  had  returned 


*  Instead  of  ITgiffxiXXav,  n^t'rfxav  is  road  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and 
in  many  cudd.  minusc;  and  this  reading  is  adopted  in  the  editions  of  Bengel,  Mill, 
Wetstein,  Grieabach,  Knaini,  Lachmann. 


ROMANS  16:  1—27.  579 

to  Rome,  and  were  there  when  Paul  wrote  tliis  letter,  Acts 
18:  18,  26.  1  Cor,  16:  19.  2  Tim.  4:  19. 

(4)  Who  have  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  necks,  i.  e. 
they  exposed  themselves  to  imminent  peril  to  save  me.  On 
what  occasion  tins  was  done  is  not  recorded.  Unfo  whom  ?iot 
only  I  give  thanks,  but  also  all  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles. 
Their  courageous  and  disinterested  conduct  must  have  been 
generally  known,  and  called  forth  the  grateful  acknowledge- 
ments of  all  the  churches  interested  in  the  preservation  of  a 
life  so  precious  as  that  of  the  apostle. 

(5)  The  church  that  is  in  their  house.  These  words  (xai  7riv 
xkt'  o/x6v  auTuv  gxxX'-itfmv)  are  understood,  by  many  of  the  Greek 
and  modern  commentators,  to  mean  their  Christian  family; 
so  Calvin,  Flatt,  Koppe,  Tholuck,  &c.  The  most  common  and 
natural  interpretation  is,  '  the  church  which  is  accustomed  to 
assemble  in  their  house;'  see  1  Cor.  16:  19,  where  this  same 
expression  occurs  in  reference  to  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  It  is 
probable  that,  from  his  occupation  as  tent-maker,  he  had  better, 
accommodations  for  the  meetings  of  the  church  than  most  other 
Christians. 

Salute  my  ivell  beloved  Epenetus,  ivho  is  the  first  fruits 
of  Achaia*  unto  Christ.  This  passage  is  not  irreconcileable 
with  1  Cor.  16:  15,  "Ye  know  the  household  of  Stephanas, 
that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia;"  for  Epenetus  may  have 
belonged  to  this  family.  So  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.  and  ver- 
sions, however,  read  Jisia  instead  of  Achaia  in  this  verse,  that 
the  great  majority  of  editors  have  adopted  that  reading.  This, 
of  course,  removes  even  the  appearance  of  contradiction. 

(6,  7)  Greet  Mary;  ivho  bestowed  much  labour  upon  us. 
Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen  and  my  fellow 
prisoners.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Junia  be  the  name  of 
a  man  or  of  a  woman,  as  the  form  in  which  it  occurs  ('louv/av) 
admits  of  either  explanation.  If  a  man's  name,  it  is  Junias;  if 
a  woman's,  it  is  Junia.  It  is  commonly  taken  as  a  female  name, 
and  the  person  intended  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  wife  or 
sister  of  Andronicus.  My  kinsmen,  i.  e.  relatives  and  not 
merely  of  the  same  nation;  at  least  there  seems  no  sufficient 

*  Atrlas  is  read  in  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  G.  (57;  an.]  in  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic 
and  Latin  versions.  Mill,  Bcngel,  Gricsbach,  Knapp  and  l.achmann  adopt  this 
reading. 


580  ROMANS  16:  1—27.  \ 

reason  for  taking  the  word  in  this  latter  general  sense.  Felloic' 
j)risoners.  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  11:  23,  when  enumerating  his  la- 
bours, says,  "  In  stripes  above  measure,  in  prisons  more  fre- 
quent, in  deaths  oft,  &c."  He  was,  therefore,  often  in  bonds, 
(Clemens  Romanus,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  sect.  5, 
aays  seven  times)  he  may,  therefore,  have  had  numerous  fellow 
prisoners.  Who  are  of  note  among 'the  apostles.  This  may 
mean  either  they  were  distinguished  apostles;  or,  they  were 
highly  respected  by  the  apostles.  The  latter  is  most  probably  the 
correct  interpretation,  1.  Because  the  word  «/?o,s//e,  unless  con- 
nected with  some  other  word,  as  in  the  phrase  "  messengers 
(apostles)  of  the  churches,"  is  very  rarely  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  any  other  than  the  original  messengers  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  word  has  a  fixed  meaning,  from  which  we  should 
not  depart  without  special  reason.  2.  Because  the  article  (sv  Tor? 
a-ffotTToXois)  among  the  apostles,  seems  to  point  out  the  definite 
well-known  class  of  persons  almost  exclusively  so  called. 
3.  The  original,  of  course,  admits  this  interpretation,  it  is  the 
simple  meaning  of  the  words.  The  passage  is  so  understood 
by  Koppe  {magna  eorum  fama  est  apnd  apostolos),  Flatt, 
Bloomfield,  and  perhaps  the  majority  of  commentators.  Who 
also  were  in  Christ  before  7ne,  i.  e.  who  were  Christians  be- 
fore me. 

(8 — 15)  My  beloved  in  the  Lord.  The  preposition  in  (tv) 
here,  as  frequently  elsewhere,  points  out  the  relation  or  respect 
in  which  the  word  to  vvhich  it  refers  is  to  be  understood;  bro- 
ther beloved  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord,  Phil.  v.  16, 
both  in  reference  to  our  external  relations,  and  our  relation  to 
the  Lord,  And  thus  in  the  following,  v.  9,  our  helper  in 
Christ,  i.  e.  as  it  regards  Christ;  v.  10,  approved  in  Christ, 
i.  e.  in  his  relation  to  Christ;  an  approved  or  tried  Christian; 
V.  12,  who  labour  in  the  Lord;  and,  which  laboured  much 
in  the  Lord,  i.  e.  who,  as  it  regards  the  Lord,  laboured  much; 
it  was  a  Christian  or  religious  service.  The  names  Tryphena, 
Tryphosa  and  Persis,  are  all  feminine.  The  last  is  commonly 
supposed  to  indicate  the  native  country  of  llie  person  who  bore 
it,  as  it  was  not  unusual  to  name  persons  from  the  place  of  their 
origin,  as  Mysa,  Syria,  Lydia,  Andria,  &c,;  such  names,  how- 
ever, soon  became  common,  and  were  given  witliout  any  refer- 
ence to  the  birth-place  of  those  who  received  them.     Chosen  in 


ROMANS  IG:  1—27.  581 

the  Lord,  i.  e.  either  one  chosen  by  the  l.onl;  oi-,  as  is  most 
probable  in  this  connexion,  chosen,  (i.  c.  approved,  precious; 
see  1  Peter  2:  4)  in  his  relation  to  the  Lord,  as  a  Christian. 

(16)  Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  Reference  to 
this  custom  is  made  also  in  1  Cor.  IG:  20.  1  Thess.  5:  2G.  1 
Peter  5:  14.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  of  oriental  origin,  and 
continued  for  a  long  time  in  the  early  churches;*  after  prayer, 
and  especially  before  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  the 
brethren  saluting  in  this  way  the  brethren,  and  the  sisters  the 
sisters.  This  salutation  was  expressive  of  mutual  affection  and 
equality  before  God. 

(17)  Noiv  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  irhich  cause 
divisions  and  offences  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
have  learned,  and  avoid  them.  While  he  urges  them  to  the 
kind  reception  of  all  faithful  ministers  and  Christians,  he  en- 
joins upon  them  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  who  cause 
divisions  and  offences.  There  were  probably  two  evils  in 
the  apostle's  mind  when  he  wrote  this  passage;  the  divisions 
occasioned  by  erroneous  doctrines,  and  the  olfences  or  scandals 
occasioned  by  the  evil  conduct  of  the  false  teachers.  Almost 
all  the  forms  of  error  which  distracted  the  early  church,  were 
intimately  connected  with  practical  i-vils  of  a  moral  ch;ii-actcr. 
This  was  the  case  to  a  certain  extent  with  the  .hidaizers;  who 
not  only  disturbed  the  church  by  insisting  on  the  ol)scrvance  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  but  also  pressed  some  of  their  doctrines  to  an 
immoral  extreme.  See  1  Cor.  5:  1 — 5.  It  was  still  more  obvi- 
ously the  case  with  those  errorists,  infected  with  a  false  philoso- 
phy, who  are  describedin  Cok  2 :  10 — 23.  1  Tim.  4 :  1 — 8.  These 
evils  were  equally  opposed  to  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  apostle. 
Those  who  caused  these  dissensions,  Paul  commands,  Christians 
first,  to  mark  {(jxoi:sh),  i.  e.  to  notice  carefully,  ami  not  allow 

*  Justin  Apol.  II.  aXXvjXouJ  jpiX^fjiaTi  a(J''ra^ofjLs5a  Tautfa/XEvoi  twv  Sjy^utv, 
'  After  prayers  we  salute'oiic  anotlicr  with  a  kiss.'  Tertifllion  Je  Orationc  ;  Quae 
oratio  cum  divortio  sancti  osculi  iiitcs^ra  \  Quom  omtiino  oflicium  far ieutein  im- 
pedit  pax  1  Quale  sacrificium  sine  pace  rcceditur  ?  By  peace  is  Iierc  intended 
the  kiss  of  peace,  for  he  iiad  before  said,  Cum  fratribus  subtrahanl  oscuiuin  pacts, 
quod  est  signaculum  orationis.  In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  it  is  said  (I.  2. 
c.  57),  "  Then  let  the  men  apart,  and  the  women  apart,  salute  each  other  with  a 
kiss  in  the  Lord."  Oriffen  says,  on  tliis  verse,  "  From  tiiis  jiassaije  the  custom  was 
delivered  to  the  churches,  that  after  prayers  the  brethren  should  sidute  one  anothcv 
with  a  Idss." — See  Ghotius  and  Wuitbt. 


582  ROMANS  IG:  1—27. 

them  to  pursue  their  corrupting  course  unheeded;  and  secondlyj, 
to  avoid,  i.  e.  to  break  off  connexion  with  them.* 

(19)  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  their  oivn  belly;  and  by  good  words  and  fair 
speeches  deceive  the  Jiearts  of  the  siinple.  These  men  are  to  be 
avoided  because  they  are  wicked  and  injurious.  The  descrip- 
tion here  given  is  applicable,  in  a  greater  degree,  to  errorists  in 
all  ages.  They  are  not  actuated  by  zeal  for  the  Lord  Jesus; 
they  are  selfish,  if  not  sensual;  and  they  are  plausible  and  de- 
ceitful. Compare  Phil.  3:  18,  19.  2  Tim.  3:  5,  6.  •  The  words 
(x^'nffTo'Ko'yia  and  sv^oyia,  blandiloquentia  et  assent atio)  rendered 
good  ivords  and  fair  sj)eeches,  do  not  in  this  connexion  mate- 
rially differ.  They  express  that  plausible  and  flattering  address 
by  which  false  teachers  are  wont  to  secure  an  influence  over  the 
simple.  The  word  (axaxog)  sinijjle,  signifies  not  merely  inno- 
cent, but  unwary,  he  who  is  liable  to  deception.  (Prov.  14:  15, 
axuMc,  maTsCsi  iravTi  Xoyw,  the  simple  believes  every  tfiing.) 

(20)  For  your  obedience  is  come  abroad  unto  all  men,  &c. 
This  clause  admits  of  two  interpretatitins;  the  word  obedience 
may  express  either  their  obedience  to  the  gospel,  their  faith 
(see  ch.  1 :  8),  or  their  obedient  disposition,  their  readiness  to 
follow  the  instructions  of  their  religious  teachers.  If  the  former 
meaning  be  adopted,  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  this, '  Ye  ought 
to  be  on  your  guard  against  these  false  teachers,  for  since  your 
character  is  so  high,  your  faith  being  every  where  spoken  of, 
it  would  be  a  great  disgrace  and  evil  to  be  led  astray  by  them.' 
If  the  latter  meaning  be  taken,  the  sense  is,  '  It  is  the  more 
necessary  that  you  should  be  on  your  guard  against  these  false 
teachers,  because  your  ready  obedience  to  your  divine  teachers 
is  so  great  and  generally  known.  This,  in  itself,  is  commenda- 
ble, but  I  would  that  you  joined  prudence  with  your  docility.' 
This  latter  view  is,  on  account  of  the  concluding  part  of  the 
verse,  most  probably  the  correct  one;  see  2  Cor.  10:  6.  Phil. 
V.  21. 

I  am  glad,  therefore,  on  your  behalf;  but  yet  I  would  have 
you  wise  unto  tJiut  ivJiicli  is  good,  and  simple  concerning 

*  Observa  autem  scrmonemad  cos  haberi  qui  in  pura  Dei  doctrina  instituti  erant: 
impiuin  et  sacrilegum  divortium  est,  qui  in  (Jiiristi  veritatc  consentiunt,  distrahere. 
Sed  impudens  calumnia  est,  pacis  et  unitatis  praetextu  conspirationem  in  niendaciu 
et  iin])ias  doctrinas  defendere. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  16:  1—27.  583 

evil.  That  is, '  Simplicity  (an  unsuspecting  docility)  is  indeed 
good;  but  I  would  have  you  not  only  simple  l)ut  prudent.  You 
must  not  only  avoid  doing  evil,  but  be  carelul  that  you  do  not 
suffer  evil.'  Grotius'  explanation  is  peculiarly  happy,  it  a  pru- 
dentes  iit  non  fallamini;  ita  honi  iit  non  fallatis;  '  so  pru- 
dent as  not  to  be  deceived;  and  so  good  as  not  to  deceive.'  The 
word  (axs'^aiog  from  a  et  xs^au)  .simple,  means  unmixed,  pure, 
and  then  hai^niless.  'Wise  as  to  {tk)  good,  hut  simple  as  to 
evil;'  or,  '  wise  so  that  good  may  result,  and  simple  so  that  evil 
may  not  be  done.'  This  latter  is  probably  the  meaning.  Paul 
would  have  them  so  wise  as  to  know  how  to  take  care  of  them- 
selves; and  yet  harmless. 

(20)  Jind  the  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your 
feet  shortly.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  ivith 
you.  Jlmen.  As  the  evils  produced  by  the  filse  teachers  were 
divisions  and  scandals,  the  apostle,  in  giving  them  the  assurance 
of  the  effectual  aid  of  God,  calls  him  the  God  of  peace,  i.  e. 
God  who  is  the  author  of  peace  in  the  comprehensive  scriptural 
sense  of  that  term.  Shall  bruise  is  not  a  prayer  but  a  consola- 
tory declaration  that  Satan  should  be  trodden  under  foot.  As 
Satan  is  constantly  represented  as  "  working  in  the  children  of 
disobedience,"  the  evil  done  by  them  is  sometimes  referred  to 
him  as  the  instigator,  and  sometimes  to  the  immediate  agents 
who  are  his  willing  instruments.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  be  with  you.  This  is  a  prayer  for  the  favour  and  aid 
of  Christ,  and  of  course  is  an  act  of  worship,  and  a  recognition 
of  the  Saviour's  divinity. 

(21 — 24)  These  verses  contain  the  salutations  of  the  apostle's 
companions  to  the  Roman  Christians,  and  a  repetition  of  the 
prayer  just  mentioned.  /  7'ertius,  who  ivrote  this  epistle, 
salute  you  in  the  Lord.  Tertius  was  Pdul's  amanuensis.  The 
apostle  seldom  wrote  his  epistles  with  his  own  hand;  iience  he 
refers  to  the  fact  of  haVing  himself  written  the  letter  to  the 
Galatians  as  somethilig  unusual;  Gal.  6:  11, ''  Ye  see  liow  large 
a  letter  I  have  written  unto  you  with  my  own  hand."  In  order 
to  authenticate  his  epistles,  he  generally  wrote  himself  the  salu- 
tation or  benediction  at  the  close;  1  Cor.  16:  21,"Thesahitation 
of  me  Paul,  with  mine  own  hand;"  2  Thess.  3:  17, "  Tlie  sahita- 
tion  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand;  which  is  the  token  in  every 
epistle:  so  I  write."    Gaius  mine  host,  andofthc  whole  church. 


584  ROMANS  IG:  1—27. 

i,  e.  Gaius,  who  not  only  entertains  me,  but  Christians  gene- 
rally; or,  in  whose  house  the  congregation  is  accustomed  to 
assemble.  Erastiis  the  chamberlain  of  the  city,  (ojxovo'ixog)  the 
treasurer  of  the  city,  the  quaestor. 

(25,  27)  These  verses  contain  the  concluding  doxology.  Noio 
to  him  that  is  of  power  to  establish  you  according  to  my  gos- 
pel and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  reve- 
lation of  the  'inystery,  &c.  As  the  apostle  interweaves  with  his 
doxology  a  description  and  eulogium  of  the  gospel,  he  renders 
the  sentence  so  long  and  complicated,  that  the  regular  gram- 
matical construction  is  broken.  There  is  nothing  to  govern 
the  words  (tw  (Juva/jLg'vqj)  to  him  that  is  of  power.  The  words 
be  glory  for  ever,  (which  are  repeated  at  the  end  in  connexion 
with  u )  are,  therefore,  most  probably  to  be  supplied.  To  him 
that  is  able  to  establish  you,  i.  e.  to  render  you  firm  and  con- 
stant, to  keep  you  from  falling.  According  to  my  gospel. 
The  word  {xara)  according  to  may  be  variously  explained.  It 
is  by  many  taken  for  (sv)  in,  '  establish  you  in  my  gospel;'  but 
this  the  proper  meaning  of  the  worcjs  will  hardly  allow.  2.  It 
may  be  rendered  agreeably  to  my  gospel,  in  such  a  manner  as 
the  gospel  requires;  or  3.  Through,  i.  e.  by  means  of  my  gospel. 
The  second  interpretation  is  perhaps  the  best.  t,find  the  preach- 
ing of  Jesus  Christ.  This  may  mean  either  '  Christ's  preach- 
ing;' or, '  the  preaching  concerning' Christ;'  either  interpretation 
gives  a  good  sense,  the  gospel  being  both  a  proclamation  by 
Christ,  and  concerning  Christ.  The  apostle  dwells  upon  this 
idea,  and  is  led  into  a  description  and  commendation  of  the 
gospel.  Jlccording  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery.  These 
words  may  be  considered  as  co-ordinate  wdth  the  preceding 
clause;  the  sense  then  is,  '  Who  is  able  to  establish  you  agree- 
ably to  (or  through)  my  gospel,  agreeably  to  (through)  the 
revelation  of  tlie  mystery,  &c.'  It  is,  however,  more  common 
and  natural  to  consider  this  clause  as  subordinate  and  descrip- 
tive. '  The  gospel  is  a  revelation  of  the  mystery  which  had 
been  hid  for  ages.'  The  word  mystery,  according  to  the  com- 
mon scriptural  sense  of  tlie  term,  docs  not  mean  something 
obscure  or  incomprehensible,  but  simply  something  previously 
unknown  and  iuidiscoveral)lc  l)y  human  reason,  and  which,  if 
known  at  all,  must  be  known  by  a  revelation  from  God.  In  this 
.sense  the  gospel  is  called  a  myster}^,  or  "  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a 


ROMANS  16:  1—27.  585 

mystery,  that  is,  a  hidden  wisdom,"  which  the  wise  of  this 
world  could  not  discover,  hut  which  God  has  revealed  by  his 
Spirit,  1  Cor.  2:  7—10.  4:  I,  Eph.  6:  19.  Col.  1:  25—27.  2:  2, 
&c.  In  the  same  sense  any  particular  doctrine,  as  the  calling 
of  the  Gentiles,  Eph.  3:4 — 6;  the  restoration  of  the  Jews, 
Rom.  11:  25;  the  change  of  the  bodies  of  living  believers  at 
the  last  day,  1  Cor.  15:  51 ;  is  called  a  mystery,  because  a  matter 
of  divine  revelation.  According  to  this  passage,  Paul  speaks 
of  the  gospel  as  something  "  which  had  been  kept  secret  since 
the  world  began;"  (x^^voig  a'lwvi'oig),  i.  e.  hidden  from  eternity  in 
the  divine  mind.  It  is  not  a  system  of  human  philosophy,  or 
the  result  of  human  investigation,  but  it  is  a  revelation  of  the 
purpose  of  God.  Paul  often  presents  the  idea  that  the  plan  of 
redemption  was  formed  from  eternity,  and  is  such  as  no  eye 
could  discover  and  no  heart  conceive,  1  Cor.  2:  7 — 9.  Col.  1:  26. 

(26)  But  is  now  made  manifest,  and  by  the  scriptures  of 
the  prophets;  that  is,  '  this  gospel  or  mystery,  hidden  from 
eternity,  is  now  revealed;  not  now,  for  tlie  first  time  indeed, 
since  there  are  so  many  intimations  of  it  in  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament.'  It  is  evident  that  tlie  apostle  adds  the 
words  and  by  the  scriptures  of  the  prophets,  to  avoid  having 
it  supposed  that  he  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion was  taught  in  the  Old  Testament;  compare  ch.  1:2.  3:  21. 
According  to  the  command  of  the  everlasting  God,  that 
is,  this  gospel  is  now  made  manifest  by  command  of  God. 
Paul  probably  uses  the  expression  ei'ertasting  (aluvko)  God, 
because  he  had  just  before  said  that  the  gospel  was  hid  from 
eternity.  '  It  is  now  revealed  by  that  eternal  Being  in  wliose 
mind  the  wonderful  plan  was  formed,  and  by  whom  alone  it 
could  be  revealed.'  Made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obe- 
dience of  the  faith.  '  Made  known  among  {sk,  see  Mark 
13:  10.  Luke  24:  47)  all  nations.'  For  the  obedience  of  faith, 
i.  e.  that  they  should  become  obedient  to  the  faith;  see  ch.  1 :  5. 
This  gospel,  so  long  concealed,  or  but  partially  revealed  in  the 
ancient  prophets,  is  now,  by  the  command  of  God,  to  be  made 
known  among  all  nations. 

(27)  To  the  only  ivise  God  be  glory  through  Jesus  Christ 
for  ever,  Arnen.     There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  original  which 

is  not  retained  in  our  version.     'To  the  only  wise  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.'     The  construction 

74 


586  ROMANS  16:  1—27. 

adopted  by  our  translators  is  perhaps  the  one  most  generally 
approved.  '  To  him  that  is  able  to  establish  you,  to  the  only 
wise  God,  through  Jesus  C)iirist,  be  glory.'  In  this  ease  the 
relative  S  to  ivhom,  in  verse  27,  is  pleonastic.  Others  explain 
the  passage  thus,  '  To  the  only  wise  God  made  known  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  (i.  e.  Christ)  be  glory  for  ever.'  The 
former  construction  appears  the  more  natural.  As  Paul  often 
calls  the  gospel  the  "  wisdom  of  God"  in  contrast  with  the  wis- 
dom of  men,  he  here,  when  speaking  of  the  plan  of  redemption 
as  the  product  of  the  divine  mind  and  intended  for  all  nations, 
addresses  his  praises  to  its  author  as  the  only  wise  God,  as 
that  being  whose  wisdom  is  so  wonderfully  displayed  in  the  gos- 
pel and  in  his  all  other  works,  that  he  alone  can  be  considered 
truly  wise.* 

Remarks. 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  receive  kindly  their  breth- 
ren and  to  aid  them  in  every  way  within  their  power,  and  to 
do  this  from  religious  motives  and  in  a  religious  manner;  as 
becometh  saints,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  social  relations  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each 
other  as  relatives,  countrymen,  friends,  should  not  be  allowed  to 
give  character  to  their  feelings  and  conduct  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  more  important  relation  which  they  bear  to  Christ.  It  is  as 
friends,  helpers,  fellow  labourers  in  the  Lord,  that  they  are  to 
be  recognised;  they  are  to  be  received  in  the  Lord;  our  com- 
mon connexion  with  Christ  is  ever  to  be  borne  in  mind,  and 
made  to  modify  all  our  feelings  and  conduct,  vs.  3 — 12. 

3.  From  the  besinnino;  females  have  taken  an  active  and  im- 
portant  part  in  the  promotion  of  religion.  They  seem  more 
than  others  to  have  contributed  to  Christ  of  their  substance;  they 
were  his  most  faithful  attendants,  '  last  at  the  cross,  and  first  at 
the  sepulchre;'  Phebe  was  a  servant  of  the  church,  a  succourer 
of  Paul  and  of  many  others;  Tryphena,  Tryphosa  and  Persis 
laboured  much  in  the  Lord,  vs.  1,  2,  3,  6,  12. 

*  Der  Gedanke,  class  Gott  von  Ewigkcit  her  jencn  Plan  unci  den  ganzen  Ver- 
lauf  seiner  Realisirung  geordnet,  konntc  den  Aposlel  sehr  natUrlich  zu  die  Betrach- 
tung  Icitcn,  wie  vvenig  der  kurzsichtige  Menscli  die  Zweckmassigkeit  eines  solchen 
Weltplans  zu  durchschauen  vermoge,  und  so  kommt  der  Apostel  dazu,  gerade  hier 
Gott  das  Pradicat  des  AUeinweisen  beizulegen. — Tholuck. 


ROMANS  IG:  1—27.  587 

4.  It  does  not  follow,  because  a  custom  prevailed  in  the  early 
churches,  and  received  the  sanction  of  the  apostles,  that  we  arc 
obliged  to  follow  it.     These  customs  often  arose  out  of  local 
circumstances  and  previous  habits,  or  were  merely  conventional 
modes  of  expressing  certain  feelings,  and  were  never  intended 
to  be  made  universally  obligatory.     As  it  was  common  in  the 
east  (and  is  so,  to  a  great  extent  at  present,  not  only  there  but  on 
the  continent  of  Europe),  to  express  affection  and  confuicnce  by 
'  the  kiss  of  peace,'  Paul   exhorts  the  Roman  Christians   to 
salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss;  i.  e.  to  manifest  their 
Christian  love  to  each  other,-according  to  the  mode  to  which 
they  were  accustomed.     The  exercise  and  manifestation  of  the 
feeling,  but  not  the  mode  of  its  expression,  arc  obligatory  on  us. 
This  is  but  one  example;  there  are  many  other  things  connected 
with  the  manner  of  conducting  puhlic  worship,  and  with  the 
administration   of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  common  in 
the  apostolic  churches,  which  have  gone  out  of  use.     Christianity 
is  a  living  principle,  and  was  never  intended  to  be  confined  to 
one  unvarying  set  of  forms,  v.  IG. 

5.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  be  constantly  watchfid  over 
the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church,  and  not  to  allow  those  who 
cause  divisions  and  scandals,  by  departing  from  the  true  doc- 
trines, to  pursue  their  course  unnoticed.  With  all  such  we 
should  break  off  every  connexion  which  either  sanctions  their 
opinions  and  conduct,  or  gives  them  facilities  for  effecting 
evil,  v.  17. 

6.  False  teachers  have  ever  abounded  in  the  church.  All  the 
apostles  were  called  upon  earnestly  to  oppose  them.  Witness 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  John,  Peter,  and  James.  No  one  of  the 
apostolical  epistles  is  silent  on  this  subject.  Good  men  may 
indeed  hold  erroneous  doctrines;  but  the  false  teachers,  the 
promoters  of  heresy  and  divisions,  as  a  class,  are  characterised 
by  Paul  as  not  influenced  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ,  but  as 
selfish  in  their  aims,  and  plausible,  flattering  and  deceitful  in 
their  conduct,  v.  18. 

7.  Christians  should  unite  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove  with 
the  wisdom  of  the  serpent.  They  should  be  careful  neither  to 
cause  divisions  or  scandals  themselves,  nor  allow  others  to  de- 
ceive and  beguile  them  into  evil,  v.  19. 

S.  However  much  the  church  may  be  distracted  and  troubled. 


588  ROMANS  16:  1—27. 

error  and  its  advocates  cannot  finally  prevail.  Satan  is  a  con- 
quered enemy  with  a  lengthened  chain;  God  will  ultimately 
bruise  him  under  the  feet  of  his  people,  v.  20. 

9.  The  stability  which  the  church  and  every  Christian  should 
maintain  is  a  steadfastness,  not  in  forms  or  matters  of  human 
authority,  but  in  the  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ. 
God  alone  is  able  thus  to  make  his  people  stand;  and,  therefore, 
we  should  look  to  him  and  depend  upon  him  for  our  own  pre- 
servation and  the  perservation  of  the  church;  and  ascribe  to  him 
and  not  to  ourselves  all  glory  and  thanks,  vs.  25,  27. 

10.  The  gospel  is  a  mystery,  i-.  e.  a  system  of  truth  beyond 
the  power  of  the  human  mind  to  discover,  which  God  has  re- 
vealed for  our  faith  and  obedience.  It  was  formed  from  eternity 
in  the  divine  mind,  revealed  by  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and 
the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  is  by  the  command  of  God 
to  be  made  known  to  all  nations,  vs.  25,  26. 

11.  God  alone  is  wise.  He  charges  his  angels  with  folly; 
and  the  wisdom  of  men  is  foolishness  with  him.  To  God, 
therefore,  the  profoundest  reverence  and  the  most  implicit  sub- 
mission are  due.  Men  should  not  presume  to  call  in  question 
what  he  has  revealed,  or  consider  themselves  competent  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  the  truth  of  his  declarations  or  the  wisdom  of 
his  plans.  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  ever.     Amen. 

The  subscriptions  to  this  and  the  other  epistles  were  not  added  by  the  sacred 
writers,  but  appended  by  some  later  and  unknown  persons.  This  is  evident, 
1.  Because  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  apostles  would  thus  formally  state  (as  in 
this  case)  what  those  to  whom  their  letters  were  addressed  must  have  already 
knowTi.  The  Romans  had  no  need  to  be  informed  that  this  epistle  was  sent  by 
Phebe,  if  she  actually  delivered  it  to  them.  2.  They  are  frequently  incorrect,  and 
at  times  contradict  the  statements  made  in  the  epistles  to  which  they  are  appended. 
Thus  the  subscription  to  the  first  Ej)istle  to  the  Corinthians  states  that  it  was 
written  from  Philippi,  whereas  Paul,  ch.  16  :  8,  speaks  of  himself  as  being  in 
Ephesus  when  he  waswritiiis^.  3.  They  are  either  left  out  entirely  by  the  oldest  and 
best  manuscripts  and  versions,  or  appear  in  very  difi'erent  forms.  In  the  present  case 
many  MSS.  have  no  subscription  at  all ;  others  sim}>ly,  "To  the  Romans  ;"  others, 
"To  the  Romans  written  from  Corinth;"  others,  "Written  to  the  Romans  from 
Corinth  by  Phebe;"  &c.  &,c.  These  subscriptions,  therefore,  are  of  no  other 
authority  than  as  evidence  of  the  opinion,  which  prevailed,  to  a  certain  extent,  at 
an  early  date  as  to  the  the  origin  of  the  epistles  to  which  they  are  attached.  Unless 
confirmed  from  other  sources  they  cannot  be  relied  ujjon, 

THE  END. 


«f5 


^ 


o 


AP 


3*0 
^^^ 


